(PS) Zamudio et al v. FMC Corp., No. 2:2016cv02693 - Document 112 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/23/2023 ADOPTING 110 The Findings and Recommendations in full; Defendants' 108 Request to dismiss this action with prejudice is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement in this action and The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ZAMUDIO, et al., 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 FMC CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING THE PARTIES’ REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE (Doc. Nos. 108, 110) 17 18 No. 2:16-cv-02693-DAD-DB (PS) Plaintiffs Raul Zamudio and Soledad Zamudio filed the complaint initiating this civil 19 action on November 14, 2016, and are proceeding in this action pro se. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter 20 was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 21 Rule 302. 22 On September 6, 2023, defendants filed a request for dismissal of this action, with 23 prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ settlement of both this action and the related case pending in 24 this court, Zamudio et al., v. FMC Corporation et al., 2:19-cv-00111-DAD-DB. (Doc. No. 108.) 25 In the pending request, defendants state that “[t]he parties have agreed upon the provision of the 26 settlement monies that the Court may dismiss with prejudice these settled actions per paragraph 27 18 of the Settlement Agreement,” a copy of which is attached to the request.” (Id. at 2.) On 28 September 7, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order directing plaintiffs to file an 1 1 opposition to the pending request, if any, within fourteen days of that order. (Doc. No. 109.) 2 Plaintiffs did not thereafter file an opposition to the pending request. 3 Consequently, on October 23, 2023, the magistrate judge issued findings and 4 recommendations recommending that defendants’ unopposed request for dismissal of this action, 5 with prejudice, pursuant to the parties’ signed settlement agreement, (Doc. No. 108) be granted 6 and that this action be dismissed with prejudice and closed. (Doc. No. 110.) Those pending 7 findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 8 objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 2.) To date, no 9 objections to the pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to 10 do so has now passed. 11 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 12 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 13 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. 16 adopted in full; 17 2. 18 3. 21 ///// 22 1 25 26 27 28 This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement in this action;1 and 20 24 Defendants’ request to dismiss this action with prejudice (Doc. No. 108) is granted; 19 23 The findings and recommendations issued on October 23, 2023 (Doc. No. 110) are The court notes that in defendants’ request, they state: “All matters are now at an end [and] the parties wish that the Court enter an Order dismissing with prejudice the Raul Zamudio and Soledad Zamudio v. FMC Corporation, et.al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02693-DAD-DB & Case No. 2:19-cv-00111-TLN-DB.” (Doc. No. 108.) However, this statement in this request, which defendants filed in this action, is not sufficient for the parties to obtain dismissal of the related case. The parties are reminded of the court’s order dated April 1, 2021 in the related case, in which the court stayed that case pending resolution of this case and provided that “[w]ithin thirty (30) days of the resolution of case number 2:16-cv-02693-TLN-DB, the parties are ORDERED to file a joint status report regarding the status of the instant action.” Zamudio, et al., v. FMC Corp., et al., 2:19-cv-00111-DAD-DB, Doc. No. 45 (April 1, 2021). Thus, to the extent the parties seek dismissal of that related case, they must file a request or stipulation on the docket in that action. 2 1 4. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. December 23, 2023 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.