Schneider et al v. Villas at Villagio et al
Filing
60
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 1 Action be Dismissed; Objections Due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/20/2015. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due by 11/9/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VIRGIE B. SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION
BE DISMISSED
v.
13
14
Case No. 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB
VILLAS AT VILLAGIO, et al.,
15
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS
Defendants.
16
17
On October 15, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why I.Q. Data
18 International, Inc. should not be dismissed from this action, as Plaintiffs Virgie B. Schneider and
19 Richard L. Schneider (“Plaintiffs”) had previously informed the Court that I.Q. Data
20 International, Inc. was the not the same entity sued by Plaintiffs in their complaint and therefore
21 had no standing to appear or defend in this action. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiffs filed a response to
22 the Court’s order to show cause on October 19, 2015. (ECF No. 59.)
23
Although Plaintiffs’ response is largely unintelligible, at the end of their written response,
24 Plaintiffs quite clearly “request that this entire action be dismissed.” (Response to the OSC, at
25 pg. 3:8.) Plaintiffs inform the Court that “[they] have now successfully entered into settlements
26 with all other defendants and are satisfied that [they] have been fully compensated.” (Response
27 to the OSC, at pg. 3:9-10.)
28 / / /
1
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed at the
1
2 plaintiff’s request by court order. It appears to the Court that it is proper for this case to be so
3 dismissed. If any party objects to dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), they may file objections to
4 these findings and recommendations.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
5
6 prejudice, and all pending matters and dates be vacated as moot.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this
7
8 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen
9 (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these
10 findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
11 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The
12 district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
13 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified
14 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th
15 Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Dated:
October 20, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?