On January 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein (ECF No. 65) which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on January 30, 2013 (ECF No. 67), and February 25, 2013 (ECF No. 69), and Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's objections and their own objections on March 8, 2013 (ECF No. 70) -- all of which were considered by the undersigned.
The Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 16, 2013 (ECF No. 65), are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
3. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint." Failure to timely file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in a recommendation by the magistrate judge of dismissal for failure to prosecute.
4. Defendants, and all other persons or entities who receive actual notice of the preliminary injunction order by personal service or otherwise, are enjoined from noticing or carrying out a trustee's sale of the real property located at 2428 Covered Wagon Circle, Elverta, California 95626, and from engaging in, committing or performing, directly or indirectly, the selling, transferring, conveying, or engaging in any other conduct adverse to Plaintiff regarding the real property.
5. In order for the injunction to remain in place, every month (on the first of the month or the first business day after if the first falls on a weekend or court holiday), Plaintiff is required to deposit with the Clerk of the Court a payment in the amount of $1143.00. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 151 (dealing with the provision of a security or bond). If Plaintiff fails to post the security within the required time, Defendants may file a notice notifying the Court of Plaintiff's failure to comply.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...