Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02410-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

JOSE VELEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRY LUONG, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2410 KJM DB PS

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Jose Velez is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore,

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

(ECF No. 29.) On January 29, 2020, defendant Ramon Soltero filed an answer. (ECF No. 4.) 

On February 6, 2020, defendant Harry Luong filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 7.) The 

motion to dismiss is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 8, 2020. (ECF No. 10.)

On March 5, 2020, the undersigned issued an order to show cause due to plaintiff’s failure 

to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 

8.) On March 6, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of defendant Harry Luong. 

(ECF No. 9.)

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-02410-KJM-DB Document 11 Filed 04/16/20 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s February 6, 2020 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is denied without 

prejudice to renewal as having been rendered moot; and

2. The May 8, 2020 hearing of defendant’s motion to dismiss is vacated.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Harry Luong be dismissed from 

this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served 

and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure 

to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 15, 2020

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/velez2410.vol.dism.f&rs

Case 2:19-cv-02410-KJM-DB Document 11 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2