Reyes v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 JOSE MARTIN REYES, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-0568 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TERMINATING THE MOTION TO DISMISS 14 ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY AS MOOT, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK COMPANY, OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendant. (Docs. 7, 12) 16 17 18 Jose Martin Reyes and Paulina Reyes, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 19 complaint against Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. 20 BCV-25-100333. (Doc. 1.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 14, 2025. (See id.) 21 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on May 21, 2025. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs did not respond to the 22 motion. The assigned magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why sanctions, including 23 dismissal, should not be imposed. (Doc. 12.) The Court also informed Plaintiffs that their failure to 24 respond to the Court “may result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to 25 obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 3, emphasis omitted). 26 After Plaintiffs again failed to respond to the Court, the magistrate judge found Plaintiffs failed 27 to prosecute in the action. (Doc. 12 at 1-2.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined Plaintiffs 28 “failed to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules.” (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge found 1 || terminating sanctions were appropriate after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in 2 || Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Ud. at 3-4.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 3 || recommended the dismissal “without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this action and to 4 || comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules.” (dd. at 4.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified them that any 6 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 12 at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiffs that the “failure to 7 || file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” (/d. 8 |] at 4-5, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiffs did not file 9 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. 10 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 11 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 12 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 8, 2025 (Doc. 12) are ADOPTED 14 in full. 15 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute this 16 action, failure to comply with the Court’s orders, and failure to comply with the Local 17 Rules. 18 3. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is terminated as MOOT. 19 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ July 28, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28