Kevin Starks v. FPI Management, et al.

E.D. California

Kevin Starks v. FPI Management, et al.

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01382

StatusUnknown

This text of Kevin Starks v. FPI Management, et al. (Kevin Starks v. FPI Management, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kevin Starks v. FPI Management, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN STARKS, No. 2:25-cv-01382-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FPI MANAGEMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kevin Starks (“Plaintiff”) filed his initial complaint in the San Joaquin County 18 Superior Court on March 25, 2025, against defendants FPI Management; Patmon Company, Inc.; 19 Patmon Stonebrier; and I.Q. Data International, Inc. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant I.Q. Data 20 International, Inc. removed this action on May 14, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred 21 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 22 Defendants FPI Management; Patmon company, Inc.; and Patmon Stonebrier filed a 23 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6), and Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc. also filed a motion to 24 dismiss (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff filed a motion to deny removal, which the Court construes as a 25 motion for remand. (ECF No. 17.) 26 On July 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27), 27 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 28 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed and 1 the time to do so has passed. 2 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 3 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 4 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 5 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court [the appellate] court[.]”). In 6 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviewed the file, the Court finds the 7 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The Court 8 therefore concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27) are ADOPTED in full; 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion to deny removal (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; 12 3. Defendants FPI Management; Patmon Company, Inc.; and Patmon Stonebrier’s 13 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice; 14 4. Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is DENIED 15 without prejudice. 16 Date: September 9, 2025 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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN STARKS, No. 2:25-cv-01382-TLN-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FPI MANAGEMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Kevin Starks (“Plaintiff”) filed his initial complaint in the San Joaquin County 18 Superior Court on March 25, 2025, against defendants FPI Management; Patmon Company, Inc.; 19 Patmon Stonebrier; and I.Q. Data International, Inc. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant I.Q. Data 20 International, Inc. removed this action on May 14, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred 21 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 22 Defendants FPI Management; Patmon company, Inc.; and Patmon Stonebrier filed a 23 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6), and Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc. also filed a motion to 24 dismiss (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff filed a motion to deny removal, which the Court construes as a 25 motion for remand. (ECF No. 17.) 26 On July 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27), 27 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 28 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed and 1 the time to do so has passed. 2 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 3 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 4 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 5 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court [the appellate] court[.]”). In 6 accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviewed the file, the Court finds the 7 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by the proper analysis. The Court 8 therefore concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27) are ADOPTED in full; 11 2. Plaintiff’s motion to deny removal (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED; 12 3. Defendants FPI Management; Patmon Company, Inc.; and Patmon Stonebrier’s 13 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) is DENIED without prejudice; 14 4. Defendant I.Q. Data International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is DENIED 15 without prejudice. 16 Date: September 9, 2025 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kevin Starks v. FPI Management, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-starks-v-fpi-management-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack