Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00275/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00275-3/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-VALAZAQUEZ 

GADDIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE 

(INSURANCE) COMPANY, et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

On November 2, 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. Plaintiff filed objections on 

November 16, 2015, and they were considered by the undersigned. 

 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). 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 58 Filed 03/24/16 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

 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 November 2, 2015, are adopted; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 39, 42) is denied. 

DATED: March 23, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00275-JAM-EFB Document 58 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2