The Board of Trustees et al v. Castillo et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANT'S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION BE DENIED signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/5/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their
capacities as Trustees of the CEMENT
MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA; CEMENT MASONS
PENSION TRUST FUND FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; CEMENT
MASONS VACATION/HOLIDAY
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA; and CEMENT MASONS
APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

No. 1:15-mc-00037-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
THAT DEFENDANT’S CLAIM OF
EXEMPTION BE DENIED

(Doc. No. 22)

Plaintiffs,
v.
SAMUEL MAGANA CASTILLO,
individually and doing business as
CONCRETE BY SMC; and CONCRETE
BY SMC,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Board of Trustee’s Motion for Order Determining Claim of Exemption came on

25

for hearing on December 4, 2015 before United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Doc.

26

No. 22.) On December 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

27

recommending that Defendant Samuel Magana Castillo’s Claim of Exemption be denied. (Doc.

28

No. 22.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on defendants with instructions that
1

1

any objections must be filed within fourteen days. Defendants did not file any objections. At the

2

request of plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge also ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to hold the

3

property in dispute pending the adoption of the Findings and Recommendations.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

5

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the

6

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly:

7

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 10, 2015 (Doc. No. 22), are

8

ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendants’ Claim of Exemption is DENIED in its entirety;

9
10

3. The U.S. Marshal Service is DIRECTED to release the $13,580.00 received from

11

Dale Atkins Contractor in response to Plaintiffs’ levy to Plaintiffs and deposit the

12

funds into Plaintiffs’ counsel’s trust account.

13
14

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on defendant at 1042
East K Avenue, Visalia, California 93292.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

January 5, 2016
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2