Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00275-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALICIA CASTANEDA-VELAZAQUEZ 

GADDIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 

(INSURANCE) COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-275-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

On June 24, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. Defendant First American Title 

Insurance Company (“First American”) and plaintiff filed objections, which were considered by 

the undersigned.1

 1

 In its objections First American notes that the findings and recommendations reference 

its motion to dismiss but do not specifically state that its motion was heard by the court on April 

1, 2015. ECF No. 30. Accordingly, First American requests that the findings and 

recommendations be modified and/or amended to reflect that its motion was heard on April 1, 

2015 and that it be clarified that the term “defendants” includes First American. Id. Although the 

findings and recommendations do not specifically state that First American’s motion was heard 

on April 1, it is clear that the findings and recommendations addressed and resolved First 

American’s motion to dismiss. Indeed, the findings and recommendations contain multiple 

citations to First American’s motion and specifically recommend that its motion be granted. 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 36 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 This 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 June 24, 2015, are ADOPTED; 

 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 4, 5, are granted; 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; 

4. Plaintiff’s motions to amend, ECF Nos. 20, 33, are denied; and 

5. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 

DATED: July 24, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

Accordingly, there is no need to modify the findings and recommendations. 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 36 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 2