Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00181/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00181-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steve Carlson
Plaintiff
Tara Carlson
Plaintiff
Monaco Coach Corporation
Defendant
Karen Pearson
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE CARLSON; TARA 

CARLSON; and KAREN 

PEARSON,

NO. CIV. S-05-181 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

MONACO COACH CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court are the parties’ objections to the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Upon review of

these documents, it is apparent that substantial portions of the

parties’ objections pertain to the magistrate judge’s order, issued

on the same day and within the same document as the findings and

recommendations. To the extent that the parties object to the

order, the court will view the objections as motions to reconsider

the magistrate judge’s order.

////

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 110 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Non-dispositive pre-trial motions referred to the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) are reviewed under a

clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980).

Here, neither party has established that the magistrate judge’s

order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. For this reason,

the parties’ motions to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order are

DENIED. 

With respect to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations, the court has reviewed the objections filed by

both parties. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, the

findings and recommendations filed on April 20, 2006 are ADOPTED

in full and the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

A Status Conference is hereby SET for July 10, 2006 at 3:00

p.m. Given the pending Status Conference, the June 30, 2006

deadline to depose plaintiff’s new expert is hereby VACATED.

Similarly, plaintiff’s ex parte application for additional

time to file objections to the findings and recommendations and a

request to continue the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 110 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff’s concerns regarding the hearing

date shall be addressed at the Status Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 21, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00181-LKK-GGH Document 110 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3