Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, the parties' moving and opposition papers, and the Report and Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has also reviewed Plaintiffs' written objections to the Report and Recommendation and made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. The Court specifically overrules Plaintiffs' objection premised on the argument that the Sixth Amendment applies to juvenile dependency proceedings. California courts have consistently held that juvenile dependency proceedings are civil actions designed to protect the child, not punish the parent. See, e.g., In re Walter E., 13 Cal.App.4th 125, 137-38 (1992) ("The central purpose of dependency proceedings is to protect the welfare and best interests of the child, not to punish the parent.").

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted.

2. The Judicial Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; all claims against Defendants Nash and Mordetzky are dismissed without leave to amend.

3. Defendant Ross's motion to dismiss is GRANTED; all claims against Defendant Ross are dismissed without leave to amend.

4. Defendant Antonovich's motion to dismiss is GRANTED; all claims against Defendant Antonovich are dismissed without leave to amend.

5. The County Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part; all claims against Defendants Trailor, Hemmens, Shannon, Bryant, Mosley, and Gil are dismissed with leave to amend;

6. The School District Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; all claims against Defendant Westside Union School District and Defendant Garza in his official capacity are dismissed without leave to amend and all claims against Defendant Garza in his individual capacity are dismissed with leave to amend.

7. The Hospital Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED; all claims against the Hospital Defendants are dismissed with leave to amend.

8. Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' third cause of action for unlawful search and seizure of E.C. are GRANTED; Plaintiffs' third cause of action is dismissed without leave to amend.

9. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action is GRANTED in part; Plaintiffs' Sixth Amendment claim is dismissed without leave to amend.

10. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action premised on Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action is dismissed without leave to amend.

11. Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED; the SAC is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

12. If Plaintiffs wish to pursue this action in this Court, they must file a Third Amended Complaint within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order correcting the deficiencies identified in the Report and Recommendation. The Third Amended Complaint, bearing the number CV 13-01472-JAK (DFM), must be a complete and independent document and must not refer to prior pleadings. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a Third Amended Complaint within the time specified by this Order may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice on the grounds stated in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and/or for failure to prosecute.