Singh v. IKEA Distribution Services, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BALWINDER SINGH, No. 1:20-cv-0975-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IKEA DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 6, 20) 18 IKEA Distribution Services, Inc. has moved to dismiss several of plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Doc. No. 6.) The assigned magistrate judge found the facts alleged were not sufficient to state cognizable claims for retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. No. 20 at 5-11.)

23 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted, but that plaintiff also be granted leave to amend the complaint to attempt to cure the noted deficiencies. (Id. at 12.)

26 The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the recommendations.

27 (Doc. No. 20 at 16.) The parties were “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. at 13, citing Martinez v. Ylst, | 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014)). To | date, no objections have been filed by either party.

3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley | United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, 7 1. The findings and recommendations dated May 12, 2021 (Doc. No. 20) are adopted 8 in full; 9 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is granted; and 10 3. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which was prematurely docketed on June 11, 11 2021, (Doc. No. 21), shall be deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order; 12 4. Defendant’s response to the first amended complaint shall be due 21 days after the 13 date of entry of this order.

14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. a - Dated: _ June 15, 2021 J aL Al 5 7 a 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE