Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02076/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02076-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vinotheque Wine Cellars
Defendant
Mark Tanner
Defendant
William J. Whitsitt
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-06-2076 FCD GGH PS

vs.

VINOTHEQUE WINE CELLARS,

MARK TANNER,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On November 20, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on

December 10, 2007, and they were considered by the district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:06-cv-02076-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 01/16/08 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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed November 20, 2007, are

ADOPTED; and

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s

first claim, age discrimination in hiring in violation of the ADEA, shall proceed against

Vinotheque only; defendant Tanner is dismissed. Plaintiff’s second claim, based on a theory of

retaliation in violation of the ADEA, is dismissed as to both defendants. Plaintiff’s third claim,

intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to state law, shall proceed against both

defendants. 

DATED: January 16, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02076-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2