Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02351/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02351-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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

GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC R. BROOKS; KELLER 

WILLIAMS,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB

ORDER

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

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On February 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations (ECF No. 35), as well as a fifth amended complaint (ECF No. 36), and 

Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 37).

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. The Court finds Plaintiff’s 

objections unavailing and the proposed fifth amended complaint, even if the Court were to deem 

Case 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB Document 40 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 3
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

it properly filed,1does not change the analysis or outcome recommended by the magistrate judge. 

Indeed, Plaintiff’s fifth amended complaint continues to assert that the Court has jurisdiction on 

the basis of federal question, but grounds that federal question jurisdiction in trespass, which does 

not state a federal cause of action. Allowing amendment would therefore be futile. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2020 (ECF No. 34), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ August 21, 2019 motion to set aside entry of default (ECF No. 20) is

GRANTED; 

3. The fourth amended complaint (ECF No. 33) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2020

1 Plaintiff did not seek and was not granted leave to amend. 

Case 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB Document 40 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 2:18-cv-02351-TLN-DB Document 40 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 3