Flattum v. State of California Department of Consumer Affairs et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/23/14 adopting 34 Findings and Recommendations with only limited modifications. Defendant's 28 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to defendants State of California, State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Board of Accountancy, and Lorrie Yost. Defendant's 28 Motion to Stay this action is DENIED; and defendant Patti Bowers shall FILE an answer to plaintiff's second amended complaint within 14 days from the date of this order. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GORDON H. FLATTUM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2711 LKK GGH PS

v.

ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff is an individual proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42

18
19

U.S.C. §1983. On October 24, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

21

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On November 7, 2013,

22

defendants filed partial objections and on November 21, 2013, plaintiff filed a reply to

23

defendants’ partial objections.1
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

24
25

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

26
27
28

1

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition to the motion to dismiss. The
court has reviewed that supplemental opposition as part of its review of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations.
1

1

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

2

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

3

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

4

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

5

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

6

1983).

7

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

8

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the October 24, 2013 Findings and Recommendations

9

with only limited modifications.2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

10

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed April 30, 2013, (ECF No. 28), is GRANTED as to

11

defendants State of California, State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, California

12

Board of Accountancy, and Lorrie Yost;

13
14

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed April 30, 2013, (ECF No. 28), is DENIED as to
defendant Patti Bowers;

15

3. Defendants’ motion to stay this action is DENIED; and

16

4. Defendant Patti Bowers shall file an answer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint

17

within fourteen days from the date of this order.

18

DATED: April 23, 2014.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Specifically, the court will only require defendant Patti Bowers to answer the second amended
complaint, and she will be required to do so within fourteen days form the date of this order.
2