(PS) Gaddis v. Fidelity National Title (Insurance) Company, et al., No. 2:2015cv00275 - Document 36 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/24/15: Defendants' motions to dismiss 4 , 5 , are granted. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff's motions to amend 20 , 33 , are denied. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Gaddis v. Fidelity National Title (Insurance) Company, et al. Doc. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ALICIA CASTANEDA-VELAZAQUEZ GADDIS, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-275-JAM-EFB PS ORDER v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE (INSURANCE) COMPANY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On June 24, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 20 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendant First American Title 21 Insurance Company (“First American”) and plaintiff filed objections, which were considered by 22 the undersigned.1 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 In its objections First American notes that the findings and recommendations reference its motion to dismiss but do not specifically state that its motion was heard by the court on April 1, 2015. ECF No. 30. Accordingly, First American requests that the findings and recommendations be modified and/or amended to reflect that its motion was heard on April 1, 2015 and that it be clarified that the term “defendants” includes First American. Id. Although the findings and recommendations do not specifically state that First American’s motion was heard on April 1, it is clear that the findings and recommendations addressed and resolved First American’s motion to dismiss. Indeed, the findings and recommendations contain multiple citations to First American’s motion and specifically recommend that its motion be granted. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 2 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 3 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 4 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 5 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 6 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 7 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 9 10 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed June 24, 2015, are ADOPTED; 12 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 4, 5, are granted; 13 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; 14 4. Plaintiff’s motions to amend, ECF Nos. 20, 33, are denied; and 15 5. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 16 DATED: July 24, 2015 17 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations. 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.
