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.

Elizabeth Ungureanu & Daniel Ungureanu v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 4, 2013

ELIZABETH UNGUREANU & DANIEL UNGUREANU Plaintiffs,
v.
A. TEICHERT & SON, INC., and RONALD WOLFSON Defendants.

ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

On March 15, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (dkt. no. 22) which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On March 27, 2013, plaintiffs filed objections to the findings and recommendations (dkt. no. 23), and on April 15, 2013, defendant Teichert filed a response to the objections (dkt. no. 25), which have been considered by the court.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines , 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Dawson v. Marshall , 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 matter 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 School 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 findings and recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22) are ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiffs' motion to remand, including the associated request for costs and expenses, (dkt. nos. 7, 20) is DENIED.

3. Defendant Teichert's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED and plaintiffs' claims against defendant Teichert are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4. The remainder of the action (plaintiffs' state law claims against defendant Wolfson) is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

5. The Clerk is directed to serve a certified copy of this order on the Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case number (XX-XXXX-XXXXXXXX) in the proof of service.

6. Defendant Wolfson's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.


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.