12180 Stratford Trust, et al v. Unigard Indemnity Company et al, No. 2:2017cv06643 - Document 203 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 202 by Judge John A. Kronstadt, the ex parte application 197 is DENIED. Based on the foregoing reviews, the findings and recommendations set forth in the Final Report are accepted. Accordingly: (1) The Sanctions Motion is GRANTED; (2) Defendants are awarded $2,640.00 in attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the Sanctions Motion; provided, however, that each party shall bear its own costs; (3) Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice; and (4) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
12180 Stratford Trust, et al v. Unigard Indemnity Company et al Doc. 203 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 12810 STRATFORD TRUST, LINDSAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada Partnership, and VIKKI SHORE, 10 11 12 13 14 v. Plaintiffs Case No. 2:17-cv-06643-JAK (GJSx) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNIGUARD INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al, Defendants. 15 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed all pleadings and other 17 documents filed in this action, Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Dkt. 139-140, 18 “Sanctions Motion”), Defendants’ Supplement to the Sanctions Motion (Dkt. 166), 19 and Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Sanctions Motion (Dkt. 170), the initial Report and 20 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 184, “Initial Report”), 21 Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Initial Report (Dkt. 187), and Defendants’ Response, 22 and the Magistrate Judge’s Final Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 202, “Final 23 Report”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court 24 has conducted a de novo review of the matters to which objections have been stated. 25 In addition, the Court has considered anew Plaintiffs’ ex parte application 26 filed on March 27, 2019, seeking oral argument and/or an evidentiary hearing in 27 connection with her Objections to the Initial Report (Dkt. 197), as well as 28 Defendants’ opposition to the ex parte application (Dkt. 198). Based on a review of Dockets.Justia.com 1 the objections, the responses to them, and the content of the Final Report, which 2 addresses several of the objections expressly, the Court concludes that neither oral 3 argument nor an evidentiary hearing is necessary or warranted. L.R. 7-15. 4 Therefore, the ex parte application is DENIED. 5 6 Based on the foregoing reviews, the findings and recommendations set forth in the Final Report are accepted. Accordingly: 7 (1) The Sanctions Motion is GRANTED; 8 (2) Defendants are awarded $2,640.00 in attorneys’ fees incurred in 9 10 connection with the Sanctions Motion; provided, however, that each party shall bear its own costs; 11 (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed with prejudice; and 12 (4) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 17 DATE: April 10, 2019 __________________________________ JOHN A. KRONSTADT 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.
