(PS) Sarkis v. Yolo County Public Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Authority et al, No. 2:2021cv01097 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/30/2022 ADOPTING 18 The Findings and Recommendations in full. Defendants' 7 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Defendants Cook and Martinez are DISMISSED without leave to amend. Plaintiff's Title VII, ADEA, and retaliation and discrimination claims under the FEHA against Defendant Cook in her individual capacity are DISMISSED without leave to amend. The balance of the motion is DENIED, and this action shall proceed on Plaintiff's FEHA hostile work environment claim against Defendant Cook in her individual capacity and Plaintiff's Title VII, ADEA, and the FEHA claims against Defendant Yolo. Defendants Yolo and Cook are directed to file an answer within fourteen days of the electronic filing date of this Order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Sarkis v. Yolo County Public Agency Risk Mgt. Ins. Authority et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMOND SARKIS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:21-cv-01097-TLN-JDP ORDER v. YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC AGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT INSURANCE AUTHORITY, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 On September 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 18 19 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 20 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 18.) No objections were 21 filed. The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 25 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 26 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 27 the record and by the proper analysis. 28 /// Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 12, 2022 (ECF No. 18) are 3 ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 4 5 part as follows: a. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Cook and Martinez are 6 7 DISMISSED without leave to amend. b. Plaintiff’s Title VII, ADEA, and retaliation and discrimination claims under the 8 9 10 11 FEHA against Defendant Cook in her individual capacity are DISMISSED without leave to amend. c. The balance of the motion is DENIED, and this action shall proceed on 12 Plaintiff’s FEHA hostile work environment claim against Defendant Cook in her individual 13 capacity and Plaintiff’s Title VII, ADEA, and the FEHA claims against Defendant Yolo. 14 3. Defendants Yolo and Cook are directed to file an answer within fourteen days of the 15 electronic filing date of this Order. 16 DATED: September 30, 2022 17 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 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.
