John Shaw v. Timothy Lindgren
This text of John Shaw v. Timothy Lindgren (John Shaw v. Timothy Lindgren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case 2:19-cv-02700-DMG-AGR Document 88 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:669
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN SHAW, ) NO. CV 19-2700-DMG (AGR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 12 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 TIMOTHY LINDGREN, et al., ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ) 15 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 17 Complaint, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States 18 Magistrate Judge (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a 19 de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The 20 Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 21 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant L.A. Care’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 12(b)(6), in which Defendants Jeanette Cato and Gabriela Rubio joined, is 23 GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed 25 without leave to amend as to all defendants, including the remaining unserved 26 individual defendants (Jacki Bussian and Timothy Lindgren). Defendant’s motion to 27 dismiss requested dismissal as to all defendants including those who were not 28 served and had not appeared. (Dkt. No. 63 at 2 n.1.) Defendants Bussian and Lindgren are in positions similar to the moving defendants, and the claims against ase 2:19-cv-02700-DMG-AGR Document 88 Filed 09/27/22 Page2of2 Page ID #:670
1 || them are integrally related. See Report at 7-11; Silverton v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 2 | F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave to amend would be futile. See a/so 3 || Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, 223 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) 4 || (court’s discretion to deny leave to amend Is “‘particularly broad where plaintiff has 5 || previously amended the complaint”). 7 8 | DATED: September 27, 2022 Dn _ 9 Pe States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Shaw v. Timothy Lindgren, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-shaw-v-timothy-lindgren-cacd-2022.