Friedman v. Pekin Insurance Company

D. Arizona

Friedman v. Pekin Insurance Company

DecidedJune 16, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-00106

StatusUnknown

This text of Friedman v. Pekin Insurance Company (Friedman v. Pekin Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedman v. Pekin Insurance Company, (D. Ariz. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Susan Friedman, et al., No. CV-23-00106-TUC-RM (MAA)

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Pekin Insurance Company, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On May 16, 2023, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 13) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to 17 Remand (Doc. 10). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 18 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 19 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 20 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 21 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 22 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 23 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 24 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 25 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 26 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 27 CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 28 clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 1 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ambri’s Report and Recommendation, 2|| the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Ambri’s 3 || Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted 5|| and adopted in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is 7\| granted. The above-entitled action is remanded to Pima County Superior Court. The 8 || Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Pima || County Superior Court. 10 Dated this 16th day of June, 2023. 11 12

14 DH tigi 2 □□ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 15 United States District □□□□□ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Susan Friedman, et al., No. CV-23-00106-TUC-RM (MAA)

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Pekin Insurance Company, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On May 16, 2023, Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri issued a Report and 16 Recommendation (Doc. 13) recommending that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to 17 Remand (Doc. 10). No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 18 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 19 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 20 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 21 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 22 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 23 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 24 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 25 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 26 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, 27 CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 28 clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 1 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Ambri’s Report and Recommendation, 2|| the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Ambri’s 3 || Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted 5|| and adopted in full. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 10) is 7\| granted. The above-entitled action is remanded to Pima County Superior Court. The 8 || Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Pima || County Superior Court. 10 Dated this 16th day of June, 2023. 11 12

14 DH tigi 2 □□ Honorable Rostsiary □□□□□□□ 15 United States District □□□□□ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Friedman v. Pekin Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-pekin-insurance-company-azd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack