Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-mc-00037/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-mc-00037-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cement Masons Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund for Northern California
Plaintiff
Cement Masons Pension Trust Fund for Northern California
Plaintiff
Cement Masons Vacation/Holiday Trust Fund for Northern California
Plaintiff
Concrete By SMC
Defendant
Samuel Magana Castillo
Defendant
The Board of Trustees
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, in their 

capacities as Trustees of the CEMENT 

MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA; CEMENT MASONS 

PENSION TRUST FUND FOR 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; CEMENT 

MASONS VACATION/HOLIDAY 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA; and CEMENT MASONS 

APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING 

TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAMUEL MAGANA CASTILLO, 

individually and doing business as 

CONCRETE BY SMC; and CONCRETE 

BY SMC,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-mc-00037-DAD-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

THAT DEFENDANT’S CLAIM OF 

EXEMPTION BE DENIED

(Doc. No. 22)

Plaintiff Board of Trustee’s Motion for Order Determining Claim of Exemption came on 

for hearing on December 4, 2015 before United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Doc.

No. 22.) On December 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that Defendant Samuel Magana Castillo’s Claim of Exemption be denied. (Doc.

No. 22.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on defendants with instructions that 

Case 1:15-mc-00037-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 01/06/16 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

any objections must be filed within fourteen days. Defendants did not file any objections. At the 

request of plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge also ordered the U.S. Marshal Service to hold the 

property in dispute pending the adoption of the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the 

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 10, 2015 (Doc. No. 22), are 

ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ Claim of Exemption is DENIED in its entirety;

3. The U.S. Marshal Service is DIRECTED to release the $13,580.00 received from 

Dale Atkins Contractor in response to Plaintiffs’ levy to Plaintiffs and deposit the 

funds into Plaintiffs’ counsel’s trust account.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on defendant at 1042 

East K Avenue, Visalia, California 93292.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-mc-00037-DAD-EPG Document 25 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 2