A. et al v. San Diego, City of et al
Filing
109
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Adopting 90 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing with Prejudice Plaintiffs Tayna A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H., Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 2/13/2018. (sjt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TANYA A. et al.,
Case No.: 14-cv-01942-L-AGS
Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR TERMINATING
SANCTIONS; AND (3) DISMISSING
WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS
TANYA A., ANGELA C., BERENIZ
F., KATELYNN D., DIANA D.,
TIANA E., MARITZA G., BRIANNA
H., EMILIA J., CLARISSA J., AND
MARIYA W.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
In this action for violation of constitutional rights filed by nude entertainment
22
dancers against the City of San Diego and the Chief of the San Diego Police Department,
23
Defendants moved for terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
24
30 and 37 against certain named Plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued
25
a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule
26
72.1(d), recommending to grant in part the unopposed motion. For the reasons stated
27
below, the report and recommendation is adopted. All claims brought by Plaintiffs Tanya
28
A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H.,
1
14-cv-01942-L-AGS
1
Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion is
2
denied in all other respects.
3
In their motion, Defendants asserted that certain Plaintiffs had failed to appear at
4
their respective depositions, respond to written discovery requests, and otherwise
5
cooperate in discovery and prosecute their cases. (Doc. no. 81.) Plaintiffs did not oppose
6
the motion. On October 11, 2017, Judge Schopler held a hearing. Counsel for both sides
7
appeared, and submitted to his tentative ruling to recommend dismissals, and denying
8
other requested sanctions. (Doc. no. 108.) On the same date, Judge Schopler issued a
9
minute order summarizing his report and recommendation, and setting a briefing
10
schedule for any objections. (Doc. no. 90.) The time to file objections expired on
11
October 27, 2017. No objections have been filed.
12
A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a
13
dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the
14
parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "The
15
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
16
recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no
17
objections are filed, de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review
18
by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50
19
(1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate
20
judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise."
21
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis
22
in original).
23
In the absence of objections, the Court adopts Judge Schopler's report and
24
recommendation. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for terminating sanctions (doc. no.
25
81) is granted in part and denied in part. All claims brought by Plaintiffs Tanya
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
14-cv-01942-L-AGS
1
A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H.,
2
Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. are dismissed with prejudice. In all other respects,
3
Defendants' motion is denied.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: February 13, 2018
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
14-cv-01942-L-AGS
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?