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)

Download PDF
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?