J.S. v. County of Kern, et al., No. 1:2014cv00419 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL the 24 Findings and Recommendations Granting In Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to 11 Motion to Dismiss and 12 Motion to Dismiss, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 06/26/2014. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
J.S. v. County of Kern, et al. Doc. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ADRIANA DOMINGUEZ, as guardian ad litem for J.S., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-419-LJO-JLT ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Docs. 11, 12, 24) Defendants moved to dismiss ten of Plaintiff’s eleven causes of action. Docs. 11, 12. On June 9, 18 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”) that none of Plaintiff’s 19 ten contested causes of action stated a claim for relief. (Doc. 34.) The Magistrate Judge recommended 20 Defendants’ motions to dismiss be granted with leave to amend and that Defendants’ motions to 21 dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety on other grounds be denied. See Doc. 24 at 14-15. The 22 Magistrate Judge also recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s prayer for 23 compensation for her own pain and suffering be granted with leave to amend. Id. at 14. 24 The parties were granted fourteen days from the date of service, or until June 23, 2014, to file 25 objections to the F&Rs. Doc. 24 at 15. In addition, Plaintiff was “advised that failure to file objections 26 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” Id. (citing Martinez 27 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, no objections were filed. In accordance with the 28 provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the 2 entire file, the Court finds that the F&Rs are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Therefore, 3 the F&Rs are ADOPTED IN FULL. 4 5 Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 6 1. The motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s prayer for pain and suffering as to the decedent are 7 DENIED; 8 2. The motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s prayer for compensation for her own pain and suffering 9 are GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND; 10 3. The motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing are DENIED; 11 4. The motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of capacity are DENIED as MOOT; 12 5. In all other respects, the motions to dismiss are GRANTED with leave to amend. 13 14 SO ORDERED Dated: June 26, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill United States District Judge 15 16 17 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.
