Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02351/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02351-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOK T. LAU,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-2351 WBS EFB PS

vs.

ANTONIO V. SILVA, P.C.,

Attorney at Law,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On August 17, 2006, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Defendants Antonio V. Silva, P.C. and

Antonio V. Silva have filed objections on August 28, 2006, which have been considered by the

undersigned district judge.

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 

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 48 Filed 09/11/06 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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

Defendants’ objections relate solely to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to

deny their motion to dismiss counts one and two of the Amended Complaint. On a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must construe the allegations of the complaint in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff, and may not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt

that plaintiff could prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Cervantes v. City of

San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendants’ arguments, relating to whether

plaintiff will be able to prove that his employment discrimination suit would have been

successful but for the alleged negligence of defendants, are more properly presented by way of

summary judgment or at the time of trial. They are insufficient to justify dismissal under Rule

12(b)(6), particularly in light of the pro se status of the plaintiff. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520-21 (1972).

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 August 17, 2006, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ October 4, 2005 motion to compel arbitration and to stay this

action is denied; and

3. Defendants’ October 4, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied.

DATED: September 8, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 48 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2