v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n. 5, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008) (quoting Wright et al. § 2810.1). However, entry of judgment in favor of defendant Daniele was manifest error. In its March 13 order, the court granted defendant SBR’s motion to dismiss, but SBR’s motion did not address the claims against Daniele. Therefore, when the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint, it dismissed it as to defendant SBR but not as to defendant Daniele. The entry of judgment in favor of Daniele had no basis and was therefore erroneous. See Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court for Central District of California, 24 F.3d 1545, 1561 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by California Department of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp., 533 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). B. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) In
holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus holding that the alj did not consider the vocational experts testimony on crossexamination and failed to articulate a basis for rejecting this evidence which was a basis for remand holding that the failure to articulate the basis for declining jurisdiction may be clear error holding that ajdministrative agencies must articulate a logical basis for their decisions