Jose R. Solano v. Orange Kangaroo, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 8:24-cv-01587
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE R. SOLANO, Case No. SA CV 24-01587-DMG (PD)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 14 RECOMMENDATIONS OF ORANGE KANGAROO, LLC, et al., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 15 Defendants. JUDGE 16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the following three 18 motions filed by Plaintiff Jose R. Solano (“Plaintiff”): (1) motion for 19 reconsideration of Order and Judgment under Local Rule 7-18 and Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 59(e) [Doc. # 69]; (2) motion to set aside Judgment pursuant to 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) [Doc. # 73]; and (3) request for certification 22 of Interlocutory Appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) [Doc. # 72]; Defendants 23 Western Progressive Trustee, LLC d/b/a Western Progressive, LLC, Karita 24 Robinson and Yosemite Lopez’s oppositions to the motions [Doc. ## 77–79]; 25 Plaintiff’s replies [Doc. ## 81–83]; Plaintiff’s notice of non-opposition by the 26 Orange Kangaroo Defendants [Doc. # 84]; the records on file; the Report and 27 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (the “Report” [Doc. # 86]); and 28 1 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report [Doc. # 89]. 2 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of the portions of the Report to 3 which Plaintiff has objected. The Report recommends denial of Plaintiff’s motions. 4 Plaintiff’s objections to the Report do not merit any change to the Report’s findings 5 or recommendations. 6 Plaintiff objects that the Report failed to acknowledge his earlier oppositions 7 to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Obj. at 2, 5–6. On the contrary, the filings to 8 which Plaintiff refers were not oppositions to a motion to dismiss. Rather, they 9 were Plaintiff’s replies to Defendants’ oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion for 10 sanctions and to Plaintiff’s motion to strike. [Doc. ## 52, 53.] Moreover, the 11 Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissal solely because of Plaintiff’s failure 12 to file an opposition, but because of other, independent reasons. In particular, 13 Plaintiff was pursuing a nearly identical action in federal court that was first in time 14 and also was pursuing a similar action in state court. [Doc. # 62 at 20–30.] 15 Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to properly apply Local Rule 16 7-12 by overlooking procedural defaults by Defendants. Obj. 89 at 2, 6–7. 17 Specifically, Plaintiff objects that Defendants failed to object to Plaintiff’s motions 18 for reconsideration and motion for certification of interlocutory appeal. Id. at 6 19 (citing Doc. ## 69, 70, 72, and 73). On the contrary, Defendants did oppose each of 20 Plaintiff’s motions. [Doc. ## 77, 78, 79.] Thus, Local Rule 7-12 did not apply to 21 these motions. 22 Plaintiff objects that he was not granted an opportunity to amend. Obj. at 3, 23 7–8. As the Magistrate Judge previously explained, however, denial of leave to 24 amend was proper because, for example, his claims reflected a misunderstanding of 25 the law, such as his characterization of acts by private parties as state action. Doc. 26 # 62 at 24–26. Moreover, amendment was improper because Plaintiff had a nearly 27 identical action pending in federal court that was first filed in Case No. 2:24-cv- 28 1 00281-MEMF-AJR, as well as a pending action in state court in Case No. 2 24STCV18083. Report at 9. Denial of leave to amend and dismissal of the action 3 were appropriate under these circumstances. Id. (citing Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of 4 Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing the broad discretion 5 of district courts to control their dockets, which includes the “discretion to dismiss a 6 duplicative later-filed action”), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 7 553 U.S. 880 (2008)). 8 Plaintiff objects that the entry of final judgment was improper because 9 several of his claims were dismissed without prejudice. Obj. at 3, 8–9. As support, 10 Plaintiff cites WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 11 1997) (en banc). Id. at 8. But Plaintiff’s “reliance is misplaced. WMX 12 Technologies merely held that when a complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, 13 the order is non-final and not appealable in the absence of a further order 14 terminating the action. Here, however, [Plaintiff’s] action was dismissed. . . . The 15 dismissal of an action, even when it is without prejudice, is a final order. The 16 action that [Plaintiff] filed . . . is over as far as the district court is concerned.” De 17 Tie v. Orange Cnty., 152 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original, 18 internal citation omitted). 19 Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge should have been recused for the 20 appearance of partiality. Obj. at 3, 9. The basis of the objection is the Magistrate 21 Judge’s allegedly erroneous rulings. Id. at 9. The Court has repeatedly explained 22 to Plaintiff why this is not a legally sufficient basis for recusal, and the explanation 23 continues to apply. [Doc. ## 66, 90.] 24 Plaintiff objects that the Report’s analysis of his motion for reconsideration 25 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is legally flawed and factually unjust. Obj. at 3, 9–10. 26 Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b) for the reasons discussed 27 above: the alleged mischaracterizations of his oppositions to Defendants’ motion to 28 1 dismiss, Defendant’s alleged failure to file oppositions to Plaintiff’s post-judgment 2 motions, the denial of the recusal of the Magistrate Judge, and the denial of leave to 3 amend. Id. at 10. Because these grounds for reconsideration lack merit as 4 discussed above, the Report’s analysis of Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion was not 5 legally flawed or factually unjust. 6 Plaintiff objects that the Report repeatedly failed to adhere to the Local 7 Rules. Obj. at 10–11. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Local Rule 7-12 should 8 have been applied in his favor because Defendants filed no oppositions to his post- 9 judgment motions, while Plaintiff did file oppositions to Defendants’ motion to 10 dismiss. Id. at 10. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s characterization of the record is 11 inaccurate. Defendants did file oppositions to Plaintiff’s post-judgment motions, 12 while Plaintiff did not file oppositions to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. ## 13 52–53, 77–79. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegation of misapplication of the Local Rules is 14 unfounded. 15 Plaintiff objects that he was denied procedural due process because he did 16 not receive fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Obj. at 3, 11. The 17 Court agrees with the Report’s rejection of this claim. “The Court considered and 18 rejected all the arguments raised by Plaintiff, including arguments in his motion to 19 strike and motion for sanctions, reviewed Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, and 20 explained in the Order Accepting the Report why Plaintiff’s objections do not 21 warrant a change to the Report and thereafter entered Judgment. Plaintiff received 22 due process and the Court properly dismissed the Complaint without leave to 23 amend.” Report at 15. 24 The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge 25 and adopts them as its own findings and conclusions. 26

28 | IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED as follows: 2 (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order and Judgment under 3 Local Rule 7-18 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is DENIED; 4 (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of 5 Civil Procedure 60(b) is DENIED; and 6 (3) Plaintiff's Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal under 28 7 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is DENIED. 8 9 || DATED: January 14, 2026 10 11 Yn J D Kets, 7 M.GEE 3 CHIE ~*™™™ED STATES DISTRI™™ ™ DGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28