Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Trollope v. Department of Child Support Services, 2:18-cv-09220-JLS (JDE). (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20190819958 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the relevant filings in this action, including the operative First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 67, "FAC") filed by Plaintiff Mathew J. Trollope ("Plaintiff") against Ventura County, the Ventura County Department of Child Support Services (sued as "Department of Child Support Services" and "Ventura County Child Support Services")
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the relevant filings in this action, including the operative First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 67, "FAC") filed by Plaintiff Mathew J. Trollope ("Plaintiff") against Ventura County, the Ventura County Department of Child Support Services (sued as "Department of Child Support Services" and "Ventura County Child Support Services"), Marcus Mitchell, Anne Michelle McKinley, James R. Allen (collectively, the "County Defendants"); the Ventura County Superior Court, Justice Kenneth R. Yegan, Judge Gilbert A. Romero, Judge Tari L. Cody, Commissioner William Redmond, Court Executive Officer Michael D. Planet (collectively, the "Judicial Defendants"), and Sheila Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"); the Motion to Dismiss the FAC (Dkt. 75, the "County Motion") and supporting Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 76) filed by the County Defendants and papers filed in opposition thereto (Dkt. 80, 81, 85); the Motion to Dismiss the FAC filed by the Judicial Defendants (Dkt. 77, the "Judicial Motion") and papers filed in opposition thereto (Dkt. 80, 81, 85); the Report and Recommendation of the assigned Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 88); and Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 89). The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted; 2. The County Motion (Dkt. 75) and the Judicial Motion (Dkt. 77) are GRANTED; 3. Judgment shall be entered dismissing all claims against the County Defendants and the Judicial Defendants without leave to amend and with prejudice; and 4. Judgment shall be entered dismissing all claims against defendant Sheila Gonzales without prejudice.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer