AMG National Corp. v. Wright

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: March 4, 2024
• Docket: 1:20-cv-02857
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 20-cv-02857-PAB-KAS

AMG NATIONAL CORP., a Colorado corporation, and AMG NATIONAL TRUST BANK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID M. WRIGHT, and KELLY L. WRIGHT,

Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 58]. The recommendation states that objections to the recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 58 at 21-22; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The recommendation was served on February 13, 2024. No party has objected to the recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 58] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [Docket No. 51] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), default judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant Kelly Wright on claims 3 and 6. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against defendant Kelly Wright is DENIED with respect to claim 3. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against defendant Kelly Wright is GRANTED with respect to claim 6 for the reasons identified by

Magistrate Judge Starnella in the Recommendation, see Docket No. 58 at 11-15, 17-19. It is further ORDERED that defendant Kelly Wright is enjoined from: (a) assisting defendant David Wright in further publication or disclosure of plaintiffs’ “confidential information” as defined in section two of the Employee Agreement, see Docket No. 2-1 at 2, and

1 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2 section three of the Director Agreement, see Docket No. 2-2 at 2; and (b) from assisting defendant David Wright in the disparagement of plaintiffs, its officials, its directors, its employees, and its affiliates. It is further ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs against defendant

Kelly Wright is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant Kelly Wright shall pay attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,735.00 and costs in the amount of $255.34 to plaintiffs for her failure to comply and to participate in this matter. DATED March 4, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge