James Toledano v. Priscilla Marconi ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES TOLEDANO, Case No. SACV 22-1331-MWF (BFM) 12 Plaintiff ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 PRISCILLA MARCONI, et al., JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 18 Complaint, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint 19 (“Motions,” Docket Nos. 59, 62), Plaintiff’s Oppositions to the Motions (Docket 20 Nos. 64, 65), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 21 recommending granting the Motions in part (“Report,” Docket No. 73), the 22 Objections of the Parties (Docket Nos. 75, 76), the Replies/Responses to the 23 Objections filed by the parties (Docket Nos, 77-79), and other relevant records on 24 file. 25 Although not required, the Court briefly makes the following observations. 26 See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court 27 ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. 28 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order 1 summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report 2 and recommendation). Plaintiff’s Objections largely rehash facts and arguments 3 already presented in previous filings and considered by the detailed Report. (See, 4 e.g., Docket Nos. 28, 45, 64, 65, 76, 77). This of course begs the question of 5 whether Plaintiff should be allowed leave to amend, the main point Defendants press 6 in their Objections. (See Docket No. 75 at 2-4). As noted in this Court’s previous 7 order accepting the first Report and Recommendation prepared by a different 8 Magistrate Judge, “Defendants’ objections amount to this: Don’t grant leave to 9 amend because we’re sick of dealing with this Plaintiff.” (Docket No. 50 at 2). The 10 Court also previously indicated that “[p]erhaps futility of amendment could be 11 shown after the next round of briefing” (id.) — which is this round currently before 12 the Court. 13 While the Court understands Defendants’ frustration in the action proceeding 14 forward with a Second Amended Complaint as recommended by the Report, the 15 Magistrate Judge did not take the futility-of-amendment assessment lightly. Indeed, 16 she specifically declined to recommend dismissal with leave to amend Plaintiff’s 17 malicious-prosecution claim. (Docket No. 50 at 2, 12-17, 27-28). Moreover, the 18 Report analyzed and provided adequate reasons to allow Plaintiff another 19 opportunity, likely his last, to cure deficiencies in his fabrication-of-evidence claim 20 and related conspiracy-to-fabricate-evidence claim. (Id. at 2, 17-28). While there 21 may be valid reasons Plaintiff should not be treated as an ordinary pro se plaintiff as 22 Defendants contend (Docket No. 75 at 3), only one prior amendment has been 23 afforded so far. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (in absence of any 24 apparent or declared reason — such as “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 25 amendments previously allowed” — leave to amend should be freely given); 26 Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 27 2013). Accordingly, because the Report adequately considered whether leave to 28 amend should be granted, and because the recommendation is for only a second 1 || amendment to one claim and its related conspiracy claim, the Court accepts the 2 || disposition recommended by the Report. 3 The Objections of both parties are overruled. 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 5 (1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and 6 || conclusions; 7 (2) Defendants’ Motions (Docket Nos 59, 62) are GRANTED IN PART; 8 (3) Plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claim is DISMISSED without leave to 9 || amend; 10 (4) Plaintiff's claim of fabrication of evidence and related claim of conspiracy 11 || to fabricate evidence are DISMISSED with leave to amend; AND 12 (5) If Plaintiff chooses to continue with this action, he shall file a Second 13 |} Amended Complaint no later than APRIL 29, 2024. = 14 ( | | WG i Q| 15 || Dated: March 27, 2024 16 MICHAEL W. FITZG D □□ United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28