Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01470/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01470-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BALDEV KHELA and JASJIT KHELA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMCO INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-01470-KES-HBK

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART

(Doc. 50)

Plaintiffs Baldev Khela and Jasjit Khela proceed against defendant AMCO Insurance 

Company in this civil action commenced on September 30, 2021. (Doc. 1.) On June 20, 2024, 

plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint (“motion to amend”). (Doc. 45.) 

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 20, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that plaintiffs’ motion to amend be denied. (Doc. 50.) Those 

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id. at 8.) To date, no 

objections have been filed and the time to do so has passed.

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

this case. After carefully reviewing the file, the Court concludes that the findings and 

Case 1:21-cv-01470-KES-HBK Document 51 Filed 12/16/24 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

recommendations that plaintiffs’ motion to amend failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 16 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Further, because 

plaintiffs previously stipulated to the dismissal of defendant AMCO Insurance Company, 

(Docs. 48, 49), this case was terminated by operation of law on July 30, 2024.

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 20, 2024, (Doc. 50), are 

adopted in part;

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, (Doc. 45), is denied; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01470-KES-HBK Document 51 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 2