Gill v. Brunswick Corp.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SATWINDER GILL, Case No. 2:24-cv-2878-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 15 Defendant. TRANSFER VENUE 16 (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 18) 18 On August 13, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, which were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objection was filed.

21 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”).

25 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on August 13, 2025 (ECF No. 18) are isl ADOPTED; 2 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 6), is DENIED; 3 3. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, (ECF No. 9), is GRANTED; and 4 4. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District 5 of Florida.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ g | Dated: _ September 3, 2025 Dena Coggins 9 United States District Judge