Munguia et al v. Bekins Van Lines, LLC et al, No. 1:2011cv01134 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 37 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiffs William Wright and Joanne Wright's 30 Motion for Choice of Law be GRANTED as to the Issue of Comparative Fault, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/13/12. (Verduzco, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Munguia et al v. Bekins Van Lines, LLC et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHEILA MUNGUIA, et al., CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01134-LJO-SKO 11 Plaintiffs, Consolidated with case no. 1:11-cv-01675LJO-SKO 12 v. 13 14 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PLAINTIFFS WILLIAM WRIGHT AND JOANNE WRIGHT'S MOTION FOR CHOICE OF LAW BE GRANTED AS TO THE ISSUE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT BEKINS VAN LINES, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants 16 _________________________________ 17 WILLIAM WRIGHT, et al. (Docket Nos. 30, 37) 18 Plaintiffs, 19 v. 20 21 BEKINS VAN LINES, LLC, et al. 22 Defendants. / 23 24 On October 19, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 25 Plaintiffs William Wright and Joanne Wright's (the "Wrights") Motion for Choice of Law (Doc. 30) 26 be GRANTED as to the issue of comparative fault. These Findings and Recommendations were 27 served on all parties appearing in the action and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 within 21 days after service of the order. (Doc. 37.) Defendants Bekins Van Lines, LLC and Myron 2 Bojszuk ("Defendants") filed objections on November 9, 2012. (Doc. 38.) 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ยง 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 5 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 As the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations set forth, the granting of the 7 Wrights' choice of law motion is limited to the issue of comparative fault only. (Doc. 37, 4:2-22.) 8 Defendants object that the Findings and Recommendations were premature and procedurally 9 defective because the Wrights' motion was not brought by the party seeking to invoke the foreign 10 law but was instead brought by parties seeking to clarify which state's law was controlling. 11 The Findings and Recommendations considered this contention and determined that, based 12 on representations made by the parties prior to the scheduling conference as well as in the briefs 13 concerning the motion, there was a "dispute as to which state's law governs the issue of comparative 14 fault in this case, the resolution of which may assist in the parties litigating this action." (Doc. 37, 15 4:20-21.) Defendants neither object to the substantive finding by the Magistrate Judge, identify any 16 incorrect analysis nor contend that the decision was improperly reached. (See Doc. 38.) Instead, 17 Defendants essentially object to the timing of decision. This Court finds, however, that early 18 resolution of legal matters can often be helpful in assisting the parties to define the scope of their 19 litigation; as such, the issue of choice of law as to comparative fault was appropriately decided at this 20 time. As noted above, the Findings and Recommendations are limited to the issue of comparative 21 fault. 22 23 This decision is applicable to all Plaintiffs in this action, including Plaintiffs Sheila Munguia and Jordan Harness, who filed a Joinder in the Wrights' Choice of Law Motion. (Doc. 33.) 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. 26 27 28 The Findings and Recommendations issued October 19, 2012, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. The Wrights' motion to establish California law as applicable is GRANTED as to the issue of comparative fault only and is applicable to all Plaintiffs in this action; and 2 1 3. 2 The Declaration of Roger A. Dreyer and supporting exhibits (Doc. 32) is STRICKEN. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 66h44d November 13, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
