Robert Medrano et al v. Richard Hamlin, et al, No. 1:2010cv01555 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 22 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER DISMISSING Third-Party Harrassment Claim Against Hamlin; ORDER DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Remand; and ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/1/2011. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
Robert Medrano et al v. Richard Hamlin, et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – FRESNO DIVISION 10 11 ROBERTO MEDRANO and ALBERTO LANDA, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01555-LJO-SKO 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 (Docket Nos. 8, 22) GENCO SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS aka GENCO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS and GENCO, INC.; RICHARD HAMLIN; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 / 19 20 On July 9, 2010, Plaintiffs Roberto Medrano ("Medrano") and Alberto Landa ("Landa") 21 (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint in Fresno Superior Court against Genco I, Inc. ("Genco") 22 (erroneously sued as "Genco Supply Chain Solutions"), and Richard Hamlin ("Hamlin"), the Facility 23 Manager at Genco, alleging various violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, 24 codified at California Government Code § 12000, et. seq.1 Genco removed the action from state 25 court on August 27, 2010. (Doc.1) On September 24, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the 26 27 1 28 A First Amended Complaint was filed on July 23, 2010, changing none of the substantive allegations of the complaint, but instead correcting the spelling of Plaintiffs' names. These name changes are reflected in the caption above. Dockets.Justia.com 1 case to state court. (Doc. 8.) 2 On January 11, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 3 (1) the third-party sexual harassment claim against Defendant Hamlin be DISMISSED without 4 prejudice; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand be DENIED; and (3) Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' 5 fees be DENIED. The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained 6 notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty (20) days. No objections were filed. 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the objections, the 9 Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. 12 The Findings and Recommendations dated January 11, 2011, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 13 2. The Third-Party Harassment Claim against Hamlin is DISMISSED; 14 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand is DENIED; and 15 3. Plaintiffs' Request for Attorneys Fees is DENIED. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: b9ed48 February 1, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2