1 2 3

4

5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL ESCAMILLA, No. 8:23-01071-JAK (ADSx) 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 RICARDO LARA, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed Defendant Ricardo 18 19 Lara’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30), Defendant Kimberly Kirchmeyer’s 20 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35), Plaintiff’s oppositions to the motions to dismiss 21 (Dkt. Nos. 33, 43), all supporting filings (Dkt. Nos. 31, 34, 44-47, 49), the Report 22 and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 54), the 23 Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 24 1 (Dkt. No. 55), and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and 2 Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 56.) 3 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 4 and Recommendation to which objections were made and overrules the objections. 5 Plaintiff’s Objections argue that Plaintiff’s claims are now ripe, and amendment 6 7 would not be futile, because of two pieces of evidence that were not before the 8 Magistrate Judge: (1) Defendants “unlawfully compiled an expansive dossier on 9 his protected First Amendment activity”; and (2) Defendants “granted licenses to 10 other applicants who submitted identical insurance certificates while arbitrarily 11 denying Plaintiff’s application on the grounds that his insurance policy did not 12 meet the statutory requirement.” (Id. at 4.) However, Plaintiff’s Objections also 13 14 attach documents reflecting that Defendants notified Plaintiff that his application 15 received closer review because Plaintiff admitted he withheld material facts from 16 the insurer from whom he obtained the coverage and as a result, was non- 17 compliant. (Dkt. No. 56, Exs. 1-2.) Plaintiff does not allege that other applicants 18 also chose to omit material information when obtaining their insurance policies. 19 20 Plaintiff’s new facts do not ripen his claims or provide a factual basis that survives 21 rational basis review. See Crownholm v. Moore,

, 1171 22 (E.D. Cal. 2023), aff’d, No. 23-15138,

(9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024) 23 (dismissing equal protection claim because plaintiffs did not adequately allege that 24 1 |} other similarly situated groups violated a statute that plaintiffs did but faced no 2 repercussions). As such, further amendment would be futile. The Court accepts 3 . . the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 54) and the Supplemental 6 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 55) are accepted; 7 2. Defendant Ricardo Lara’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30) is granted; 8 3. Defendant Kimberly Kirchmeyer’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35) is 9 granted; 10 4. Defendant Ricardo Lara’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 31) is denied; 11 5. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 49) is denied; 12 6. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; 13 and 14 7. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 15 me VO 17 || Dated: March 19, 2024 C| 18 John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24