Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02313/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02313-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eli Aguilera
Plaintiff
Michelle Aguilera
Plaintiff
David Rosenberg
Defendant
Unifund CCR, LLC
Defendant

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHELLE AGUILERA & ELI 

AGUILERA, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DAVID ROSENBERG & UNIFUND 

CCR, LLC, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2313-JAM-KJN PS 

ORDER 

 On March 14, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 

27), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On March 28, 2016, 

plaintiffs filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 30), which have been 

considered by the court. 

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

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); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 

930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). 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 matter on the applicable law. 

See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 

Case 2:15-cv-02313-JAM-KJN Document 31 Filed 04/01/16 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

conclusions of law are 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 HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27) are ADOPTED. 

 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. 

 3. The first amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

 4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 31, 2016 

 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-02313-JAM-KJN Document 31 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 2