Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01259-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

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

CLAUDIA GONZALEZ MONDRAGON, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

R T FARM LABOR, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

HOLD DEFAULTED DEFENDANT R T 

FARM LABOR, INC. IN CONTEMPT

ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE HEARING

AS TO DEFAULTED DEFENDANT R T 

FARM LABOR, INC.’S NONCOMPLIANCE 

WITH SUBPOENA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO APPEAR REMOTELY 

AS MOOT

ORDER CONTINUING MID-DISCOVERY 

STATUS CONFERENCE

 (Docs. 63, 70)

 Order to Show 

 Cause Hearing: October 21, 2024 

 1:30 PM

Courtroom 4 (JLT)

 Mid-Discovery 

 Status Conference: November 7, 2024 

 9:00 AM

Courtroom 8 (BAM)

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 1 of 11
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 matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Claudia Gonzalez Mondragon, Gustavo 

Gusman, and Alan Reyes’ (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. (Doc. 

63.) Plaintiffs’ motion sought to compel defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to comply 

with a February 26, 2024 subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects or to permit 

inspection of premise. (Id.) The deadline for filing of an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion has 

passed. See L.R. 251(e).

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc’s 

noncompliance with the subpoena on July 15, 2024, setting a show cause hearing for August 22, 

2024. (Doc. 68.) Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not appear at the show cause hearing and 

has not otherwise opposed Plaintiffs’ motion or responded to the Court’s July 15, 2024 order. 

(See Doc. 71.)

Having carefully considered the briefing, and for all the reasons detailed below, the Court 

recommends that the District Court ORDER Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to appear at a 

hearing to show cause why it should not be held into contempt. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(e)(6)(B)(iii), the undersigned certifies facts to the district court in support of the finding that 

further contempt proceedings are warranted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative wage and hour class action on October 3, 2022, against 

Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc.; Ricardo Trevino Jr.; Ricardo Gomez Trevino; Harold 

Chuhlantseff; and Does 1-50. (Doc. 1.) On April 17, 2023, upon application of the Plaintiffs, 

default was entered against Defendants Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R T Farm Labor, Inc., Ricardo 

Trevino Jr. (Doc. 15.) On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative first amended 

complaint against Defendants R T Farm Labor, Inc.; T&C Vineyards; Ricardo Trevino Jr.; 

Ricardo Gomez Trevino; Harold Chuhlantseff; and Does 1-50. (Doc. 23.) On February 6, 2024, 

upon application by Cross Claimant T&C Vineyards, default was entered against Defendants 

Harold A Chuhlantseff, Ricardo Gomez Trevino, R T Farm Labor, Inc., Ricardo Trevino Jr. 

(Doc. 47.) On March 13, 2024, upon application of the Plaintiffs, default was entered against 

Defendant Harold A Chuhlantseff. (Doc. 50.) 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 11
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

3

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena. (Doc. 

63.) The Court issued its Order to Show Cause regarding defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc.’s noncompliance with Plaintiffs’ subpoena, construing Plaintiffs’ motion as a request for an 

order to show cause as to why a contempt citation should not issue. (Doc. 68.) In that order, the 

Court set a show cause hearing for August 22, 2024, and directed Plaintiffs to serve the order to 

defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. no later than July 26, 2024. (Id.) Plaintiffs served 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. with the order on July 19, 2024. (Doc. 69.) On August 21, 

2024, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte requesting that their counsel be permitted to appear remotely for 

the August 22, 2024 show cause hearing. (Doc. 70.)

On August 22, 2024, the Court held a show cause hearing. (Doc. 71.) Counsel Gonzalo 

Quezada appeared in person on behalf of Plaintiffs. The Court waited an additional five minutes 

to begin the hearing, but representatives or counsel for defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 

did not appear. The Court proceeded with the hearing, noting that: defaulted Defendant R T 

Farms, Inc. had produced three documents that were not fully responsive to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas

(Doc. 67-2), the subpoena was properly served (Doc. 67), and Plaintiffs had filed a proof of 

service of the order to show cause (Doc. 69). The Court therefore found that there was adequate 

notice to defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court that 

he estimated a class size of 400 and that he had not received any further response from defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. despite sending letters and attempting to call the number he had 

found for defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel also noted that defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. had not filed a notice of bankruptcy with the California 

Secretary of State, but defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s farm labor license had expired 

in late 2023 or early 2024. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Defaulted Defendant as Nonparty for Discovery Requests

As a preliminary matter, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a defaulted defendant should be 

treated as a non-party.” Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1159 

(9th Cir. 2010) (noting that defaulted defendant was a nonparty for the purposes of discovery 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 3 of 11
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

4

requests). District Courts have held that for defaulted defendants and nonparties, the “only 

sanction available when a nonparty does not obey a subpoena is contempt,” and “a motion to 

compel would not be the right way to seek relief.” Morales-Garcia v. Higuera Farms, Inc., No. 

CV185118SVWJPRX, 2020 WL 6260016, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2020) (examining a motion to 

compel discovery on defaulted defendant); see also Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. Viewtech, Inc., 

No. 1:09-MC-00052-SMS, 2010 WL 653186, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010) (“ultimately, it the 

recipient fails to comply without adequate excuse, the recipient is in contempt of court, and the 

proponent must file an application for an order to show cause why a contempt citation should not 

issue.

B. Civil Contempt

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(g), a court “may hold in contempt a person 

who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related 

to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g). “Adequate excuse” is not a defined standard but is instead factually 

dependent. HI.Q, Inc. v. ZeetoGroup, LLC, No. MC 22-cv-1440-LL-MDD, 2022 WL 17345784, 

at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Advisory Committee's Note to 1991 

Amendment and Sanchez v. Albertson's, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-2017-JAD-DJA, 2022 WL 656369, at 

*8 (D. Nev. Mar. 3, 2022)). “Proper subpoenas issued by attorneys on behalf of the court are 

treated as orders of the Court. Morgutia-Johnson v. City of Fresno, No. 1:14-CV-00127-LJOSKO, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015) (citing United States Sec. & Exh. 

Comm’n v. Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 693 (7th Cir.2010)). Where a party seeks a contempt sanction 

against a nonparty, that nonparty has the right to be heard in a meaningful fashion. Id. at *2 

(citing Hyatt, 621 F.3d at 696-97).

A contempt charge against a nonparty may be either of a criminal or a civil nature. See 

Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir.1983). “[A] court may 

impose civil contempt sanctions to (1) compel or coerce obedience to a court order, and/or (2) 

compensate the contemnor's adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor's 

noncompliance.” Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4, 

721 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013). “The district court has ‘wide latitude in determining 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 4 of 11
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

5

whether there has been a contemptuous defense of its order.’” Stone v. City & Cnty. of San 

Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 25, 1992) 

(citing Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 266 (9th Cir.1984)). However, generally “the minimum 

sanction necessary to obtain compliance is to be imposed.” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 

953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, “[a] civil contempt order must be accompanied by 

a ‘purge’ condition, meaning, it must give the contemnor an opportunity to comply with the order 

before the payment of the fine or other sanction becomes due.” Martinez v. City of Pittsburg, No. 

C 11-01017 SBA LB, 2012 WL 699462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012).

“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The moving party has 

the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific 

and definite order of the court.” F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). 

“The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Id.

C. Magistrate Judge Authority

Absent consent by the parties, magistrate judges lack authority over civil contempt 

proceedings except in limited circumstances, none of which are applicable here. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(e); Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653, 656-57 (9th Cir. 1996) (“when we upheld the power of a 

magistrate judge to impose discovery sanctions, we also opined that § 636(e), ‘which governs the 

jurisdiction and powers of magistrates, requires a magistrate to refer contempt charges to a district 

court judge.’”). A magistrate judge may only investigate whether further contempt proceedings 

are warranted and, if the magistrate judge so finds, certify such facts to a district judge. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(e)(6); see also Alcalde v. NAC Real Estate Invs. & Assignments, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 969, 

971 (C.D. Cal. 2008). Specifically, upon finding an act constituting a civil contempt:

the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a district 

judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any person whose 

behavior is brought into question under this paragraph, an order 

requiring such person to appear before a district judge upon a day 

certain to show cause why that person should not be adjudged in 

contempt by reason of the facts so certified. The district judge shall 

thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of 

and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in 

the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt 

committed before a district judge.

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 5 of 11
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

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii); see also Grimes v. City & Cnty. Of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 

240 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that § 636 “requires a magistrate judge to refer contempt charges to a 

district court judge.”). “Essentially, the magistrate judge's role is to determine whether the 

movant has established a prima facie case of contempt – i.e., whether the movant has shown by 

clear and convincing evidence that the party or nonparty has violated a court order.” Delorme v. 

Big Think Capital, Inc., No. 2:23-mc-00037-FLA-MAR, 2023 WL 8125766, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 

18, 2023).

III. CERTIFICATION OF FACTS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), the undersigned certifies the following facts to 

the district judge assigned to this matter:

(1) The February 26, 2024 subpoena (Doc. 67-1) complied with the applicable procedural 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45;

(2) Plaintiffs’ subpoenas were properly served on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. through personal service on agent Ricardo Trevino Jr. on February 29, 2024 (See 

Doc. 14-1 at 2; Doc. 63-2 at 4; Doc. 63-5 at 2; Doc. 67-3 ¶ 2, Doc. 68 at 4-5);

(3) On March 18, 2024, defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. replied to Plaintiffs’ 

subpoena with only three pages of records related to the named Plaintiffs but did not 

provide documents related to R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s non-exempt employees during 

the relevant period as requested (Doc. 63-1 ¶ 6, Doc. 67 ¶ 4, Doc. 67-2);

(4) On May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter to defaulted Defendant R T 

Farm Labor, Inc. stating that the response was deficient, as it only produced three 

documents related to named Plaintiffs (Doc. 63-3);

(5) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not provide further documents 

responsive to Plaintiffs’ subpoena, move to quash the subpoena, or otherwise offer any 

excuse for failing to comply with the subpoena (Doc. 63-1 ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 67 ¶ 4, Doc 

70-1 ¶ 2);

(6) On May 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Compliance regarding 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 6 of 11
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

7

defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc.’s contempt of Plaintiffs’ subpoenas (Docs. 

63, 67);

(7) On July 12, 2024, the undersigned issued an order to show cause directing defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to appear at an August 22, 2024 hearing to show 

cause why contempt sanctions should not issue, and noting that defaulted Defendant R 

T Farm Labor, Inc. could file a written response explaining why it should not be held 

in contempt for failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and that Plaintiffs or 

defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. could file a notice if defaulted Defendant R 

T Farm Labor, Inc. complied with Plaintiffs’ subpoena (Doc. 68);

(8) On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs served a copy of the July 12, 2024 order on defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. (Doc. 69-2);

(9) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not respond in writing to the July 12, 

2024 order to show cause;

(10) No notice was filed that defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. had complied 

with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and Plaintiffs’ counsel noted in an August 21, 2024 ex parte 

application that he had not been contacted by defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. or its counsel (Doc 70-1 ¶ 2);

(11) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. or its representative did not appear at the 

August 22, 2024 show cause hearing (Doc. 71);

(12) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. did not otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ 

subpoena, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel or the undersigned’s Order to Show Cause

why contempt sanctions should not issue (See Doc. 63-1 ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 67 ¶ 4, Doc 70-1 

¶ 2); and

(13) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has made no attempt to explain its 

nonappearances and noncompliance with court orders.

Based on these facts, the undersigned recommends that defaulted Defendant R T Farm 

Labor, Inc. be held in civil contempt. Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has failed to 

comply with clear and definite court orders—both the February 26, 2024 subpoena and the 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 7 of 11
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

8

Court's July 12, 2024 Show Cause Order. Morgutia-Johnson, 2015 WL 1021123, at *2. 

Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. also did not appear at the August 22, 2024 show cause 

hearing as ordered by the undersigned. (Docs. 68, 71.) Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, 

Inc. did not object to the subpoena or otherwise seek relief from compliance with the Court’s 

orders. Nor did defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Compel. Plaintiffs have therefore shown by clear and convincing evidence that defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. violated specific orders of the Court. Accordingly, the 

undersigned recommends that the District Court order defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 

to appear before it to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt. Delorme, 2023 WL 

8125766, at *3.

IV. SANCTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE AND OPPORTUNITY TO PURGE

The Court must consider the appropriate sanction to compel defaulted Defendant R T 

Farm Labor, Inc. to comply with the February 26, 2024 subpoena if it continues its 

noncompliance. The undersigned recommends defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. be 

given twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of these Certification of Facts and Findings 

of Recommendation to fully comply with the February 26, 2024 subpoena and the Court’s July 

12, 2024 Order to Show Cause, or to show why compliance is impossible. See United States v. 

Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983) (“In a civil contempt proceeding such as this, of course, a 

[contemnor] may assert a present inability to comply with the order in question... While the court 

is bound by the enforcement order, it will not be blind to evidence that compliance is now 

factually impossible. Where compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the court has 

any reason to proceed with the civil contempt action. It is settled, however, that in raising this 

defense, the [contemnor] has a burden of production.”). 

Should defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. fail to purge itself of contempt prior to 

the expiration of this twenty-one (21) day period, the undersigned recommends the District Court 

impose a $50 a day fine on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc., payable to the Clerk of 

Court for the Eastern District of California until it complies with the subpoena. See Garcia on 

behalf of California v. M.G. Luna, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00190-KES-HBK, 2024 WL 3637483, at *2 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 8 of 11
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

9

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2024) (imposing $200 per day fine on defaulted defendants until they fully 

complied with subpoenas); Whittaker, 953 F.2d at 517 (“the minimum sanction necessary to 

obtain compliance is to be imposed”). The undersigned further recommends that Plaintiffs be 

directed to file a status report every fourteen (14) days after the fine is imposed informing the 

Court of whether defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. has complied with Plaintiffs’ 

subpoena and whether an extension of the daily fine is necessary.

V. CONCLUSION, ORDER, AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. SHALL appear in-person before District 

Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on October 21, 2024 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 4 (JLT), 

United States District Court, 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA to SHOW CAUSE 

why it should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena;

2. Counsel for Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to appear in-person for the October 21, 2024 

Show Cause Hearing unless otherwise excused;

3. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to personally serve a copy of these Certifications of Facts 

and Findings and Recommendations upon defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 

no later than September 6, 2024, and to file proof of service with the Court;

4. Pursuant to the “purge” condition outlined above in Section IV, defaulted Defendant R 

T Farm Labor, Inc. SHALL HAVE twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of 

these Certifications of Facts and Findings and Recommendations upon defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. to fully comply with Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 

subpoena or show by clear and convincing evidence why compliance is impossible;

5. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to immediately file a notice with the Court if defaulted 

Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. complies with Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 

subpoena;

6. Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to appear remotely at the August 22, 2024 (Doc. 70) is 

DENIED as moot; and

7. The Mid-Discovery Status Conference set for September 3, 2024, is CONTINUED 

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 9 of 11
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

10

to November 7, 2024, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate 

Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. The parties shall file a status report one week prior to 

the conference. The parties shall appear at the conference remotely either via Zoom 

video conference or Zoom telephone number. The parties will be provided with the 

Zoom ID and password by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The Zoom 

ID number and password are confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate court 

attire required.

It is further RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. The District Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 63) as construed as a

request for an order to show cause as to why a contempt citation should not issue (See 

Doc. 68);

2. If defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. fails to avail itself of the “purge”

condition prior to the expiration of the twenty-one (21) day period, the District Court 

impose a fine on defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. of $50 per day payable to 

the Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California until defaulted Defendant R T 

Farm Labor, Inc. complies with Plaintiffs’ February 26, 2024 subpoena; and

3. Plaintiffs be directed to file a status report every fourteen (14) days after the fine is 

imposed informing the Court of whether defaulted Defendant R T Farm Labor, Inc. 

has complied with Plaintiffs’ subpoena and whether an extension of the daily fine is 

necessary.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

////

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 10 of 11
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

11

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the 

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual 

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01259-JLT-BAM Document 72 Filed 08/27/24 Page 11 of 11