-KJN (PS) Rhodes v. Placer County et al, No. 2:2009cv00489 - Document 127 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/3/11 ORDERING the findings and Recommendations 120 ADOPTED; The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of California Civil Code § 43 is GRANTED as to moving dft Jackson and the claim is DIS MISSED with prejudice as against her; the motion to dismiss claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 45-46 is GRANTED as to moving dfts Jackson and Fakhri, and the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; the motion to dismiss claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.7 are GRANTED as to moving dfts Jackson and Fakhri, and the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; the motion to dismiss claims for violations of California C ivil Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 54.3 are GRANTED as to moving dfts Jackson and Fakhri, and those claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; the motion to dismiss claims for violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 is GRANTED as t o moving dft Jackson, and the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice asagainst her; the motion to dismiss the claim for violation of California Civil Code § 1708 isGRANTED as to moving dfts Jackson and Fakhri, and that the claim is DISMISSED withprejudice as against them; the motion to dismiss the negligence per se claim is GRANTED as to movingdfts Jackson and Fakhri, and the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against them. (Carlos, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-KJN (PS) Rhodes v. Placer County et al Doc. 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHLYN A. RHODES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:09-cv-00489-MCE-KJN PS vs. ORDER PLACER COUNTY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. __________________________________/ 17 On March 31, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 18 120) herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to 19 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 22 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 26 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF. No. 120) filed March 31, 2011, 3 are ADOPTED; 4 2. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of California Civil Code § 43 is 5 GRANTED as to moving defendant Sonia Marie Jackson, M.D. (“Jackson”) and the claim is 6 DISMISSED with prejudice as against her; 7 3. The motion to dismiss claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 45-46 is 8 GRANTED as to moving defendants Jackson and David Fakhri, M.D. (“Fakhri”), and the claims 9 are DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; 10 4. The motion to dismiss claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.7 11 are GRANTED as to moving defendants Jackson and Fakhri, and the claims are DISMISSED 12 with prejudice as against them; 13 5. The motion to dismiss claims for violations of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 14 54.3 are GRANTED as to moving defendants Jackson and Fakhri, and those claims are 15 DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; 16 6. The motion to dismiss claims for violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 is 17 GRANTED as to moving defendant Jackson, and the claims are DISMISSED with prejudice as 18 against her; 19 7. The motion to dismiss the claim for violation of California Civil Code § 1708 is 20 GRANTED as to moving defendants Jackson and Fakhri, and that the claim is DISMISSED with 21 prejudice as against them. 22 8. The motion to dismiss the “negligence per se” claim is GRANTED as to moving 23 defendants Jackson and Fakhri, and the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 9. The motion to dismiss the false imprisonment claim is GRANTED as to moving 2 defendants Jackson and Fakhri, and the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against them; and 3 4 5 10. The motion to dismiss the conversion claim is GRANTED as to moving defendants Jackson and Fakhri, and the claim is DISMISSED with prejudice as against them. Dated: May 3, 2011 6 7 8 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
