Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01942/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01942-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

14-cv-01942-L-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TANYA A. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-cv-01942-L-AGS

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) 

GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR TERMINATING 

SANCTIONS; AND (3) DISMISSING 

WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS 

TANYA A., ANGELA C., BERENIZ 

F., KATELYNN D., DIANA D., 

TIANA E., MARITZA G., BRIANNA 

H., EMILIA J., CLARISSA J., AND 

MARIYA W.

In this action for violation of constitutional rights filed by nude entertainment 

dancers against the City of San Diego and the Chief of the San Diego Police Department, 

Defendants moved for terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

30 and 37 against certain named Plaintiffs. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler issued 

a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Civil Local Rule 

72.1(d), recommending to grant in part the unopposed motion. For the reasons stated 

below, the report and recommendation is adopted. All claims brought by Plaintiffs Tanya 

A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H., 

Case 3:14-cv-01942-L-AGS Document 109 Filed 02/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14-cv-01942-L-AGS

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

Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion is 

denied in all other respects.

In their motion, Defendants asserted that certain Plaintiffs had failed to appear at 

their respective depositions, respond to written discovery requests, and otherwise 

cooperate in discovery and prosecute their cases. (Doc. no. 81.) Plaintiffs did not oppose 

the motion. On October 11, 2017, Judge Schopler held a hearing. Counsel for both sides 

appeared, and submitted to his tentative ruling to recommend dismissals, and denying 

other requested sanctions. (Doc. no. 108.) On the same date, Judge Schopler issued a 

minute order summarizing his report and recommendation, and setting a briefing 

schedule for any objections. (Doc. no. 90.) The time to file objections expired on 

October 27, 2017. No objections have been filed. 

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" on a 

dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the 

parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "The 

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 

recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no 

objections are filed, de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require review 

by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 

(1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate 

judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis 

in original).

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts Judge Schopler's report and 

recommendation. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for terminating sanctions (doc. no. 

81) is granted in part and denied in part. All claims brought by Plaintiffs Tanya 

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

/ / / / /

Case 3:14-cv-01942-L-AGS Document 109 Filed 02/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14-cv-01942-L-AGS

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

A., Angela C., Bereniz F., Katelynn D., Diana D., Tiana E., Maritza G., Brianna H., 

Emilia J., Clarissa J., and Mariya W. are dismissed with prejudice. In all other respects, 

Defendants' motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2018

Case 3:14-cv-01942-L-AGS Document 109 Filed 02/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3