Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02981/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02981-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AKS Equities Inc.
Plaintiff
Constance Maria Agee
Defendant
GP Equities Inc.
Plaintiff
Monroe Mayhue Thompson
Defendant
Constance M. Thompson
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 

GP EQUITIES INC. AND AKS 

EQUITIES INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MONROE MAYHUE THOMPSON; 

CONSTANCE M. THOMPSON, aka 

CONSTANCE M. AGEE; and Does 1-10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2981-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

On January 8, 2015, 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 fourteen days. No objections were filed.1

 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

 1

 Although it appears from the file that defendants’ copies of the findings and 

recommendations were returned, they were properly served. It is a party’s responsibility to keep 

the court apprised of a current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of 

documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 

Also, on January 27, 2015, defendant Constance Maria Agee filed a copy of a complaint 

she apparently filed in state court. ECF No. 6. The document, however, is not responsive to the 

January 8 findings and recommendations. 

Case 2:14-cv-02981-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/27/15 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

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

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

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed January 8, 2015, are ADOPTED; 

and 

 2. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of 

California in and for the County of Sacramento. 

DATED: February 26, 2015 

 /s/ John A. Mendez______________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02981-JAM-EFB Document 7 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 2