Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01939/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01939-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This action was removed to federal court by Defendant BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of 

Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on November 17, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff 

Maurice Curtis moved to remand this action back to Fresno County Superior Court (ECF No. 56) for a 

lack of diversity jurisdiction. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. 

McAuliffe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On January 20, 2015, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that the Motion to Remand be DENIED. (ECF No. 71.) The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 

within fifteen (15) days of the date of service. To date, no party has filed objections to the Findings 

and Recommendations.

MAURICE J. CURTIS,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

BCI COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES 

BOTTLING COMPANIES, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:1:13-cv-1939 AWI-BAM 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(ECF No. 71)

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 

Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued January 20, 2015, are adopted in 

full; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, filed on December 4, 2014, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01939-AWI-BAM Document 77 Filed 02/18/15 Page 2 of 2