(PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv01849 - Document 73 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/3/19 ADOPTING 69 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff's motion to remand and motion for sanctions 23 are DENIED. Defendants' motions to dismiss 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , and 20 are GRANTED. Defendants' motions to strike portions of the complaint 9 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 20 and Plaintiff's motion for default judgment 50 are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's motion to strike the motions to dismiss 34 is DENIED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within 21 days of this order, Plaintiff is ordered file either a second amended complaint in compliance with this order or a request for voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc. et al Doc. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM JOHN MACKINTOSH, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 LYFT, INC., et al., No. 2:19-cv-1849-MCE-KJN PS ORDER (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 34, 50, 69) Defendants. 15 16 17 On November 1, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 69), 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 (14) days. No objections were 20 filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 22 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 26 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 69) are ADOPTED; 2 2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand and motion for sanctions (ECF No. 23) are DENIED; 3 3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for violations of the “short and plain statement” rule 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (ECF Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20) are GRANTED; 4. Defendants’ motions to strike portions of the complaint (ECF Nos. 9, 14, 17, 18, 20) and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 50) are DENIED AS MOOT; 5. Plaintiff’s motion to strike the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 34) is resolved alongside the motions to dismiss, and insomuch as it must be ruled upon, it is DENIED; 6. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; 7. Within 21 days of this order, Plaintiff is ordered file either (a) a second amended 11 complaint in compliance with this order or (b) a request for voluntary dismissal of the 12 action without prejudice; and 13 8. Plaintiff is informed that failure to timely comply with the Magistrate Judge’s 14 recommendations and this order may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice 15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 3, 2019 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.
