(PS) Davison et al v. Century 21 Select Real Estate Folsom et al, No. 2:2015cv00991 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/13/15 ORDERING the Findings and Recommendations filed June 18, 2015 (ECF No. 5) are ADOPTED; Defendant "Sacramento District Court" is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice; Plaintiff s' request for a TRO (ECF No. 1 at 4-5) is DENIED; Plaintiffs' "special motion to strike" (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; and Plaintiffs' "motion for immediate injunctive relief" (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Davison et al v. Century 21 Select Real Estate Folsom et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILTON J. DAVIDSON, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-0991-TLN-KJN PS ORDER v. VERTUS PROPERTIES, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 On June 18, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein 17 18 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the Findings 19 and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 5.) No objections were 20 filed. Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 21 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 Findings and Recommendations in full. 27 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 18, 2015 (ECF No. 5) are ADOPTED; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 2. Defendant “Sacramento District Court” is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice; 3 3. Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO (ECF No. 1 at 4-5) is DENIED; 4 4. Plaintiffs’ “special motion to strike” (ECF No. 3) is DENIED; and 5 5. Plaintiffs’ “motion for immediate injunctive relief” (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot. 6 7 Dated: November 13, 2015 8 9 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.