(PS) Banga v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 2:2008cv01518 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/30/2011 ORDERING The proposed 49 Findings and Recommendations, are ADOPTED; dft's 41 motion to dismiss, is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART; dft's motion to strike pltf's puni tive damages claim is DENIED; pltf's request to file certain documents under seal is DENIED; pltf is directed to file, within 7 days of the date of this order, a redacted version of her declaration and supporting exhibits; and pltf is also directed to file, within 14 days of the date of this order, a 5th amended complaint that is consistent with this order, the F & R's, and this court's previous orders. The 5th amended complaint shall not set forth any new claims. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Banga v. Allstate Insurance Company Doc. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KAMLESH BANGA, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1518 LKK EFB PS vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, 14 Defendants. ORDER 15 __________________________________/ 16 17 On March 1, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 18 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff and defendant 20 filed objections on March 14 and March 15, 2011, respectively. Defendant filed a reply to 21 plaintiff’s objections on March 21, 2011. Plaintiff filed a reply to defendant’s objections on 22 March 24, 2011. Those documents were considered by the undersigned. 23 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to 24 which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 25 Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 26 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. 2 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 4 1983). 5 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 6 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 8 9 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 1, 2011, are ADOPTED; 10 11 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 41, is granted in part and denied in part; 12 3. Defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s punitive damages claim is denied; 13 4. Plaintiff’s request to file certain documents under seal is denied; 14 5. Plaintiff is directed to file, within seven days of the date of this order, a 15 16 redacted version of her declaration and supporting exhibits; and 6. Plaintiff is also directed to file, within fourteen days of the date of this order, a 17 fifth amended complaint that is consistent with this order, the March 1, 2011 findings and 18 recommendations, and this court’s previous orders. The fifth amended complaint shall not set 19 forth any new claims. 20 DATED: March 30, 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.