GP Equities Inc. et al v. Monroe Mayhue Thompson et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/26/2015 ADOPTING 5 Findings and Recommendations; REMANDING this case to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

GP EQUITIES INC. AND AKS
EQUITIES INC.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2981-JAM-EFB PS

ORDER
v.
MONROE MAYHUE THOMPSON;
CONSTANCE M. THOMPSON, aka
CONSTANCE M. AGEE; and Does 1-10,
inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On January 8, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

19

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

20

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed.1

21

Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United

22

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

23

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

24
1

25
26
27
28

Although it appears from the file that defendants’ copies of the findings and
recommendations were returned, they were properly served. It is a party’s responsibility to keep
the court apprised of a current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of
documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Also, on January 27, 2015, defendant Constance Maria Agee filed a copy of a complaint
she apparently filed in state court. ECF No. 6. The document, however, is not responsive to the
January 8 findings and recommendations.
1

1
2

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,
concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

4

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 8, 2015, are ADOPTED;

5
6
7

and
2. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Sacramento.

8
9
10

DATED: February 26, 2015
/s/ John A. Mendez______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2