Collins et al v. The Planning Commission of The City of Madera, California et al, No. 1:2010cv00430 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING in FULL the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 ; ORDER DISMISSING Claims and Directing Plaintiff to File an Amended Complaint, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/28/10: Amended Complaint due by 8/2/2010.(Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Collins et al v. The Planning Commission of The City of Madera, California et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LYNN M. COLLINS, JAY & ANDREW YOUNT FAMILY PRESERVATION SOCIETY, INC., and JAY DEE YOUNT, ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE ) CITY OF MADERA, CALIFORNIA, ) DENNIS WRIGHT, KENNY SHOETTLER ) and WILLIE HIBDON, ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) 1:10-cv-00430 AWI GSA ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (Document 8) 18 19 On May 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 20 recommending that certain causes of action be dismissed from this action. The Court further 21 recommended that Plaintiffs be allowed to file an amended complaint to address other deficient 22 claims, as well as the legal representation status of named Plaintiff Jay & Andrew Yount Family 23 Preservation Society, Inc. (“YFPSI”). The Findings and Recommendations were served on 24 Plaintiffs and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days. 25 Plaintiffs have not filed any objections. 26 In accordance with the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code section 636 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the 2 entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record 3 and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 19, 2010, are ADOPTED IN 7 2. Plaintiffs’ claims pertaining to California’s Brown Act are DISMISSED; 8 3. Plaintiffs’ claims pertaining to California Civil Code section 1573 are 6 9 10 11 12 FULL; DISMISSED; 4. Plaintiffs’ claims pertaining to Title 18 of the United States Code sections 241, 242 and 245 are DISMISSED; 5. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file an amended Complaint to include claims made 13 pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 17001, and claims pertaining to 14 California Government Code sections 65583 and 65589.5. Plaintiffs are reminded they must 15 address the legal representation status of YFPSI if it remains a named Plaintiff in the amended 16 Complaint; 17 6. Any amended Complaint shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of 18 service of this order. Further, if Plaintiffs decide to file an amended Complaint, Plaintiffs are 19 reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint (Forsyth v. Humana, 20 Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)), 21 and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading." Local 22 Rule 220. Plaintiffs are warned that "[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint 23 which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived." King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to 24 London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 25 1474. If Plaintiffs attempt to amend beyond the claims outlined above, the Court will dismiss 26 the case; and 27 28 2 1 7. Finally, Plaintiffs are also advised that if they fail to timely file an amended 2 Complaint, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to follow the Court's order and diligently 3 prosecute this action. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: 0m8i78 June 28, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
