Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roxanne Ari v. Clear Tech

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 27, 2012

ROXANNE ARI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLEAR TECH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed July 31, 2012, plaintiff was ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.) On August 16, 2012, plaintiff filed a response confirming that she seeks $25,000 in damages. (Dkt. No. 8.) This does not meet the amount-in-controversy threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20120827

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.