Central Valley Ranch, LLC et al v. World Wide Investments, LLC II et al, No. 1:2010cv00020 - Document 29 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/10/2010 adopting in full 23 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting 13 Motion to Strike Serenity Financial Group's Answer. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
Central Valley Ranch, LLC et al v. World Wide Investments, LLC II et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 U N IT ED ST A T ES D IST RICT COU RT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 CENTRAL VALLEY RANCH, LLC, et al., ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) WORLD WIDE INVESTMENTS, LLC II, ) et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) 1:10cv020 LJO DLB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER (Document 23) 16 Plaintiffs Central Valley Ranch, LLC, Gordon W. Shaw Properties, Inc. and William 17 Barkett (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on January 5, 2010. On March 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed the 18 instant motion to strike the answer of Defendant Serenity Financial Group, LLC (“Serenity”). 19 Plaintiffs moved to strike the answer based on the failure of Serenity, a business entity, to be 20 represented by an attorney. 21 On May 21, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 22 Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Serenity’s answer be GRANTED. The Findings and 23 Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be 24 filed within fourteen (14) days of service. 25 On June 8, 2010, Defendants Bryan Pilosi and Raviv Wolfe, proceeding pro se, filed a 26 document entitled “Declaration.” The Court construes this document as an untimely objection to 27 the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On June 8, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a reply. 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In the objection, Defendants Pilosi and Wolfe claim that neither they nor Serenity were 2 served with the motion to strike or the show cause order issued by the Court on April 20, 2010. 3 Defendants object based on a lack of proper notice. This objection lacks merit. The Court 4 docket reflects that Defendants were served with these documents, as well as the Findings and 5 Recommendations. 6 Defendants Pilosi and Wolfe also claim that the Court permitted them until July 14, 2010, 7 to obtain an attorney for Serenity. The record in this action belies Defendants’ claim. On April 8 13, 2010, the Court held a Scheduling Conference. The docket reflects that it was continued to 9 allow “defendants to retain counsel.” Doc. 21. Subsequently, on April 20, 2010, the Court 10 issued a show cause order directing Defendants to demonstrate why Serenity’s answer should not 11 be stricken or for Serenity’s counsel to file a notice of appearance within 20 days. More than 20 12 days passed. Defendants did not respond and no notice of appearance was filed. Accordingly, 13 the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Serenity’s answer be stricken. 14 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 15 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 16 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. 19 The Findings and Recommendations issued May 21, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 20 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Serenity Financial Group’s answer is GRANTED; and 21 3. The answer of Serenity Financial Group, LLC, is STRICKEN from the record. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 66h44d June 10, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.