Filed: Mar. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. On February 2, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days (Dkt. No. 311). Although no party filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiffs filed untimely objections to those findings and recommendations on March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 319). Despite the untimel
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. On February 2, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days (Dkt. No. 311). Although no party filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiffs filed untimely objections to those findings and recommendations on March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 319). Despite the untimely..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
On February 2, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days (Dkt. No. 311). Although no party filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations, plaintiffs filed untimely objections to those findings and recommendations on March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 319). Despite the untimely nature of plaintiffs' objections, the court has considered those objections out of an abundance of caution.
This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
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.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed February 2, 2012, are ADOPTED.
2. Defendant Delores Jordan's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 257) is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the following claims shall proceed:
a. Plaintiffs' seventh claim for relief (violation of rights of Equal Protection), only to the extent that it is alleged by plaintiff Susan Winters against defendant Delores Jordan;
b. Plaintiffs' ninth claim for relief (civil battery), only to the extent that it is alleged by plaintiffs Susan, Cacey, Christy, and Jennifer Winters against defendant Delores Jordan;
c. Plaintiffs' tenth claim for relief (civil assault), only to the extent that it is alleged by plaintiffs Susan, Cacey, Christy, and Jennifer Winters against defendant Delores Jordan;
d. Plaintiffs' twelfth claim for relief (trespass); and
e. Plaintiffs' twenty-fifth claim for relief (invasion of privacy), only to the extent that it concerns alleged intrusions on May 26, 2008, and June 2, 2008.
Plaintiffs' remaining claims alleged against Jordan are dismissed with prejudice in all other respects.
3. Defendant David Silber's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 258) is granted. All of plaintiffs' claims alleged against Silber are dismissed with prejudice, and Silber is dismissed from this action.
4. Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment (Dkt. No. 189) is denied as to defendant Delores Jordan.
