(PS) Pearl Investment Company, LLC v. McPhee et al, No. 2:2015cv00852 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/20/15 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed April 30, 2015, are adopted in full; this action is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and Plaintiff's motion to remand, 5 and motion to shorten time, 6 are denied as moot. Copy of remand order sent to Sacramento Superior, Case# 15UD01695. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Pearl Investment Company, LLC v. McPhee et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEARL INVESTMENT CO., LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-00852 KJM AC v. ORDER RHONDA MCPHEE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Defendants, proceeding pro se, removed the above-entitled action. The matter was 17 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). On April 30, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 7. Neither party has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 26 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 27 the proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 30, 2015, are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court; and 4 3. Plaintiff’s motion to remand, ECF No. 5, and motion to shorten time, ECF No. 6, are 5 denied as moot. 6 DATED: May 20, 2015. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 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.