El Sobrante Development, LLC et al v. National Assurance Group, Inc et al, No. 1:2008cv00455 - Document 90 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 89 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Default Judgment; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 78 Motion for Attorney's Fees; Plaintiff may AMEND their COMPLAINT with Regard to Defendant Geiss within Fourteen (14) Days from the Date of this Order signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/2/2010. Amended Complaint due by 9/21/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
El Sobrante Development, LLC et al v. National Assurance Group, Inc et al Doc. 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) ) v. ) ) NATIONAL ASSURANCE GROUP, ) INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) EL SOBRANTE DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C, et al., Plaintiff, 1: 08-CV-0455 AWI DLB ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (Doc. Nos. 78, 89) 16 17 On August 11, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 18 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment and Attorneys' Fees be DENIED. These Findings and 19 Recommendations were served on all parties appearing in the action and contained notice that 20 any objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days after service of the order. No objections 21 were filed. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 23 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that 24 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper 25 analysis. 26 However, the Court will modify the Findings and Recommendations in one respect. The 27 Findings and Recommendations recommend granting Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 complaint. This case has been pending since March 2008, and the claims against all defendants, 2 save for Geiss, have been resolved since November 2009. Further, the Court had to issue an 3 order in April 2010 to show cause why the case should not be dismissed against Geiss due to 4 non-prosecution. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 75. In light of these considerations, Plaintiff 5 will be given fourteen (14) days in which to file an amended complaint. 6 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 The Findings and Recommendations issued August 11, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL, except for the time in which to file an amended complaint; 10 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED; 11 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is DENIED; 12 4. Plaintiffs may amend their complaint with regard to Defendant Geiss, 13 incorporating no new causes of action, within fourteen (14) days from the date of 14 this order; and 15 5. If Plaintiffs fail to amend the complaint with regard to Defendant Geiss within 16 fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, the Court will dismiss Defendant 17 Geiss from the action and close the case. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: 0m8i78 September 2, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
