BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP v. AIM Group Corporation

Opinion

BBK TOBACCO & FOODS, LLP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-01648-GMN-BNW vs. ) ) ORDER ADOPTING R&R AIMS GROUP USA CORPORATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) Pending before the Court are two Reports and Recommendations (R&Rs), (ECF Nos. 124, 125), of United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler. The first R&R, (ECF No. 124), recommends that Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 116), and Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 118), against Defendant AIMS Group be denied without prejudice. The second R&R, (ECF No. 125), recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 112), against Defendant Brocone Organic Private Limited (“BOPL”) be granted, that judgment in the amount of $905,909.74 be entered against BOPL, that Plaintiff be allowed to re-file a renewed motion on the issue of the remaining damages sought, and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief, (ECF No. 114), against BOPL be granted. A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no objections to the R&Rs were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Orders, ECF Nos. 124, 125) (setting April 1, 2024, deadline for objections). The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&Rs in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Reports and Recommendations, (ECF Nos. 124, } 125), are ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment, (ECF No. } 116), and Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 118), against Defendant AIMS Group are DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 112), against Defendant Brocone Organic Private Limited is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment in the amount of $905,909.74 shall be entered against Defendant Brocone Organic Private Limited. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be allowed to re-file a renewed motion on the issue of the remaining damages sought against Defendant Brocone Organic Private Limited. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Permanent Injunctive Relief, (ECF No. 114), against Defendant Brocone Organic Private Limited is GRANTED. Dated this _2 day of April, 2024. _ sid Nee Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United S District Court

Page 2 of 2