Caliz v. City of Los Angeles, CV 15-5161-JLS (KS). (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190821923
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the parties' related briefing, the June 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and Defendant's Objections to the Report ("Objections"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOSEPHINE L. STATON , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the parties' related briefing, the June 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and Defendant's Objections to the Report ("Objections"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOSEPHINE L. STATON, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and the parties' related briefing, the June 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), and Defendant's Objections to the Report ("Objections").
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Reports to which objections have been stated. Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings and conclusions set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and the stay on discovery in connection with Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Benavidez and Tran is LIFTED. A case management and scheduling order will issue separately.
This Order is without prejudice to Defendants raising any argument presented in the Motion in a future motion for summary judgment that is filed after the discovery motions deadline has passed. Accordingly, the Court does not presume that this case is ready to be set for trial.
Source: Leagle
