Dutro v. Hilarides, No. 1:2012cv00212 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees; and ORDER REMANDING CASE to Tulare County Superior Court, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/21/2012. Copy of remand order mailed to Tulare County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
Dutro v. Hilarides Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT DUTRO, 12 CASE NO. 1:12-cv-0212 LJO-BAM Plaintiff, AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RE CO MME NDATIONS ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 13 14 15 vs. ROBERT HILARIDES, et. al. 16 Defendants. / 17 18 Plaintiff Scott Dutro (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Remand on March 15, 2012. (Doc. 6).1 On 19 April 12, 2012, Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 9). On April 20, 2012, 20 Plaintiff filed his reply to Defendants’ opposition. (Doc. 11, 12). 21 On May 1, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the Motion be 22 GRANTED and the matter be remanded to the Fresno County Superior Court for further proceedings. 23 (Doc. 16). The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any 24 objections were to be filed within fifteen (15) days of the date of service. 25 On May 15, 2012, Defendants filed their objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 27 1 28 The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Recommendations. (Doc. 17). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 2 3 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Defendants’ objections, the 4 Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued May 1, 2012, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED; 8 3. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED; 9 4. This action is REMANDED to the Tulare County Superior Court of California, Visalia 10 Division, for all further proceedings. This order terminates this action in its entirety. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: 66h44d 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. May 21, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 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.