Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03092/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03092-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine 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 

BOBBY JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEIU, UNITED HEALTHCARE 

WORKERS—WEST, and DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-3092 KJM DB PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

 On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings 

and recommendations. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, 

particularly with respect to the statute of limitations bar, which is dispositive. 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-03092-KJM-DB Document 32 Filed 03/09/20 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 

 While there are insufficient facts in the Second Amended Complaint to determine the date 

on which plaintiff learned the union would not reimburse him for his legal expenses, the 

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss makes clear plaintiff sued the union in small claims court for 

reimbursement of the fees on September 26, 2018. The small claims court determined it did not 

have jurisdiction and dismissed for plaintiff to refile in federal court. Plaintiff sent a letter to his 

union representative again demanding reimbursement on April 12, 2018, which was denied. He 

filed this action on November 30, 2018. By the point at which plaintiff brought his initial small 

claims suit against the union, he knew it would not reimburse him. Even extending the point at 

which the action accrued to the rejection of his final demand letter on or about April 12, 2018, he 

still failed to meet the deadline to file. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2019 (ECF No. 30) are adopted 

in full; 

 2. Defendant’s April 30, 2019 amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is granted; 

 3. The April 15, 2019 second amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; 

and 

 4. This action is closed. 

DATED: March 9, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-03092-KJM-DB Document 32 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2