Carrasco v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 1:2013cv01438 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/19/2013. (Granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion to Dismiss ; Denying 17 Motion to Remand, Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint shall be filed not later than 1/10/2014.) (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESIRE SOARES CARRASCO, Case No. 1:13-cv-01438-LJO-SAB Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. 13 ECF NO. 27 14 C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On November 27, 2013, the magistrate judge assigned to this action issued a Findings 19 and Recommendations recommending that Defendants C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc, 20 Cheyenne Barcelona and Sean Nelson’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss be partially granted 21 and partially denied. (ECF No. 27.) The Findings and Recommendations further recommended 22 that Plaintiff Desire Soares Carrasco’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand be denied. The Findings 23 and Recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) 24 days. No party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 26 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 27 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 / / / 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. FULL; 3 4 The November 27, 2013 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN 2. Plaintiff’s attempt to join Cheyenne Barcelona and Sean Nelson as defendants in this action is DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e); 5 6 3. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED; 7 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is PARTIALLY GRANTED; a. 8 Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim is DENIED; 9 10 b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s harassment claim is GRANTED; 11 c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DENIED; 12 d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s meal period claim is GRANTED; 13 14 e. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s rest period claim is GRANTED; 15 f. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim is GRANTED; and 16 17 5. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint shall be filed not later than January 10, 2014. 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 19, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.