Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01106/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01106-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

VIRGIE B. SCHNEIDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VILLAS AT VILLAGIO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

BE DISMISSED

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

(14) DAYS

On October 15, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause why I.Q. Data 

International, Inc. should not be dismissed from this action, as Plaintiffs Virgie B. Schneider and 

Richard L. Schneider (“Plaintiffs”) had previously informed the Court that I.Q. Data 

International, Inc. was the not the same entity sued by Plaintiffs in their complaint and therefore 

had no standing to appear or defend in this action. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiffs filed a response to 

the Court’s order to show cause on October 19, 2015. (ECF No. 59.)

Although Plaintiffs’ response is largely unintelligible, at the end of their written response, 

Plaintiffs quite clearly “request that this entire action be dismissed.” (Response to the OSC, at 

pg. 3:8.) Plaintiffs inform the Court that “[they] have now successfully entered into settlements 

with all other defendants and are satisfied that [they] have been fully compensated.” (Response 

to the OSC, at pg. 3:9-10.)

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/21/15 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

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed at the 

plaintiff’s request by court order. It appears to the Court that it is proper for this case to be so 

dismissed. If any party objects to dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), they may file objections to 

these findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, and all pending matters and dates be vacated as moot.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen 

(14) days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these 

findings and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 20, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01106-JAM-SAB Document 60 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2