James Toledano v. Priscilla Marconi

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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.

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“Motions,” Docket Nos. 59, 62), Plaintiff’s Oppositions to the Motions (Docket Nos. 64, 65), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending granting the Motions in part (“Report,” Docket No. 73), the Objections of the Parties (Docket Nos. 75, 76), the Replies/Responses to the Objections filed by the parties (Docket Nos, 77-79), and other relevant records on 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 ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Plaintiff’s Objections largely rehash facts and arguments already presented in previous filings and considered by the detailed Report. (See, e.g., Docket Nos. 28, 45, 64, 65, 76, 77). This of course begs the question of whether Plaintiff should be allowed leave to amend, the main point Defendants press in their Objections. (See Docket No. 75 at 2-4). As noted in this Court’s previous order accepting the first Report and Recommendation prepared by a different Magistrate Judge, “Defendants’ objections amount to this: Don’t grant leave to amend because we’re sick of dealing with this Plaintiff.” (Docket No. 50 at 2). The Court also previously indicated that “[p]erhaps futility of amendment could be shown after the next round of briefing” (id.) — which is this round currently before the Court.

13 While the Court understands Defendants’ frustration in the action proceeding forward with a Second Amended Complaint as recommended by the Report, the Magistrate Judge did not take the futility-of-amendment assessment lightly. Indeed, she specifically declined to recommend dismissal with leave to amend Plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claim. (Docket No. 50 at 2, 12-17, 27-28). Moreover, the Report analyzed and provided adequate reasons to allow Plaintiff another opportunity, likely his last, to cure deficiencies in his fabrication-of-evidence claim and related conspiracy-to-fabricate-evidence claim. (Id. at 2, 17-28). While there may be valid reasons Plaintiff should not be treated as an ordinary pro se plaintiff as Defendants contend (Docket No. 75 at 3), only one prior amendment has been afforded so far. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (in absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed” — leave to amend should be freely given); Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty, 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, because the Report adequately considered whether leave to amend should be granted, and because the recommendation is for only a second || amendment to one claim and its related conspiracy claim, the Court accepts the || 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 || 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 || amend; 10 (4) Plaintiff's claim of fabrication of evidence and related claim of conspiracy || 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 |} Amended Complaint no later than APRIL 29, 2024. = 14 ( | | WG i Q| || Dated: March 27, 2024 16 MICHAEL W. FITZG D □□ United States District Judge