Schneider et al v. Villas at Villagio et al, No. 1:2015cv01106 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that this 1 Action be Dismissed; Objections Due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/20/2015. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections to F&R due by 11/9/2015. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VIRGIE B. SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED v. 13 14 Case No. 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB VILLAS AT VILLAGIO, et al., 15 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS Defendants. 16 17 On October 15, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why I.Q. Data 18 International, Inc. should not be dismissed from this action, as Plaintiffs Virgie B. Schneider and 19 Richard L. Schneider (“Plaintiffs”) had previously informed the Court that I.Q. Data 20 International, Inc. was the not the same entity sued by Plaintiffs in their complaint and therefore 21 had no standing to appear or defend in this action. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiffs filed a response to 22 the Court’s order to show cause on October 19, 2015. (ECF No. 59.) 23 Although Plaintiffs’ response is largely unintelligible, at the end of their written response, 24 Plaintiffs quite clearly “request that this entire action be dismissed.” (Response to the OSC, at 25 pg. 3:8.) Plaintiffs inform the Court that “[they] have now successfully entered into settlements 26 with all other defendants and are satisfied that [they] have been fully compensated.” (Response 27 to the OSC, at pg. 3:9-10.) 28 / / / 1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed at the 1 2 plaintiff’s request by court order. It appears to the Court that it is proper for this case to be so 3 dismissed. If any party objects to dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), they may file objections to 4 these findings and recommendations. Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 5 6 prejudice, and all pending matters and dates be vacated as moot. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 7 8 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 9 (14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 10 findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 11 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 12 district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 14 time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 15 Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 20, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
