John Vogel v. RMAC Trust Series 2016-CTT

E.D. Virginia

John Vogel v. RMAC Trust Series 2016-CTT

DecidedApril 11, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-02182

StatusUnknown

This text of John Vogel v. RMAC Trust Series 2016-CTT (John Vogel v. RMAC Trust Series 2016-CTT) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Vogel v. RMAC Trust Series 2016-CTT, (E.D. Va. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

JOHN VOGEL, et al., ) Plaintiffs, v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-2182 (RDA/LRV) RMAC TRUST SERIES 2016-CTT, et ai., Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala on February 11, 2025. Dkt. 27. On January 17, 2025, Plaintiffs John Vogel and Karen Mitchell-Smith filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 20. Magistrate Judge Vaala recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion be denied without prejudice. Dkt. 27 at 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the deadline for submitting objections to Magistrate Judge Vaala’s Recommendation was February 25, 2025. To date, no objections have been filed. After reviewing the record and Magistrate Judge Vaala’s Recommendation, and finding no clear error,! the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Recommendation (Dkt. 27). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

| See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”).

If they wish to seek leave to file an amended Complaint, Plaintiffs should be allowed to file a renewed motion to amend their Complaint, together with (1) a redlined copy of the proposed amended Complaint against the original Complaint, and (2) a clean copy of the proposed amended Complaint. The motion should set forth sufficient information for the Court to assess whether the Rule 15 standard is met. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to all parties and all counsel of record. Itis SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia April _({_, 2025

Rossie D. Alston, Jk. United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

JOHN VOGEL, et al., ) Plaintiffs, v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-2182 (RDA/LRV) RMAC TRUST SERIES 2016-CTT, et ai., Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala on February 11, 2025. Dkt. 27. On January 17, 2025, Plaintiffs John Vogel and Karen Mitchell-Smith filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 20. Magistrate Judge Vaala recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion be denied without prejudice. Dkt. 27 at 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the deadline for submitting objections to Magistrate Judge Vaala’s Recommendation was February 25, 2025. To date, no objections have been filed. After reviewing the record and Magistrate Judge Vaala’s Recommendation, and finding no clear error,! the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Recommendation (Dkt. 27). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 20) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

| See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”).

If they wish to seek leave to file an amended Complaint, Plaintiffs should be allowed to file a renewed motion to amend their Complaint, together with (1) a redlined copy of the proposed amended Complaint against the original Complaint, and (2) a clean copy of the proposed amended Complaint. The motion should set forth sufficient information for the Court to assess whether the Rule 15 standard is met. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to all parties and all counsel of record. Itis SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia April _({_, 2025

Rossie D. Alston, Jk. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John Vogel v. RMAC Trust Series 2016-CTT, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-vogel-v-rmac-trust-series-2016-ctt-vaed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack