Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Alvarez
Plaintiff
Morris Shea Bridge Company
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-00723 JLT BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND, AND 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docs. 7, 8, 15)

Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. for retaliation. 

(See generally Doc. 1-3.) Morris-Shea removed the action from Fresno County Superior Court 

based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff objected to removal. (Doc. 7.) On June 26, 

2024, Morris-Shea filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 8.) The Court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge for 

preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 9.)

On August 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

recommended: (1) Plaintiff’s objections to removal be overruled and, as construed, Plaintiff’s 

motion for remand be denied, (2) Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss be granted, and (3) Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 15.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties on August 5, 2024, 

and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 15 at 6.) The Court also 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 19 Filed 08/27/24 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

informed the parties that “the failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 

waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id. at 6-7, quoting 

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff filed objections on August 7, 

2024. (Doc. 17.) Morris-Shea did not respond to the objections.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes

that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. In his 

objections, Plaintiff contends that this case should not be dismissed. He also appears to include 

additional allegations related to his claims. As recommended by the Magistrate Judge, the action 

will not be dismissed at this time and Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to amend his 

complaint for damages. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 7, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 

ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s objections to removal are OVERRULED and, as construed, Plaintiff’s 

motion to remand is DENIED (Doc. 7).

3. Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend.

5. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of service of this 

order.

6. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file an amended complaint by the above deadline 

will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 19 Filed 08/27/24 Page 2 of 2