La Briola v. American Modern Home Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 6, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00783
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Christopher Michael La Briola, No. CV-20-00783-PHX-ESW

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 American Modern Home Insurance Company, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett’s Report and 16 Recommendation recommending that the Court grant the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal 17 and dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff Christopher Michael La Briola’s (“Plaintiff”) 18 Complaint. (Doc. 17 at 1-2.) Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court 19 hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Maricopa County Superior 22 Court, alleging breach of contract and bad faith against American Modern Home Insurance 23 Company (“American Modern”), American Modern Insurance Group, Inc., Stacey Staton, 24 John Doe Staton, Jennifer Anderson, John Doe Anderson, Black and White Partnerships I- 25 X, ABC Corporations I-X, and Jane Does I-X (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1-1 at 2- 26 9.) American Modern removed this matter to federal court and filed its Answer. (Docs. 1; 27 7.) Plaintiff and American Modern filed a Stipulation for Dismissal without Prejudice on 28 June 18, 2020. (Doc. 16.) Magistrate Judge Willett then filed a Report and 1 Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant the stipulation and dismiss without 2 prejudice this matter. (Doc. 17.) 3 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 4 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must 5 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is 6 made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 7 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also 8 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified 9 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s 10 recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s 11 factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law. 12 Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States 13 Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). 14 By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to 15 challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate 16 Judge’s legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 17 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a 18 factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); 19 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 20 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 23 objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 24 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 25 IV. CONCLUSION 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 28 Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 17.) 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED approving the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal without Prejudice. (Doc. 16.) 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing without prejudice the Complaint, each 4|| party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to terminate this 6 || action in its entirety. 7 Dated this 6th day of August, 2020. 8 ° Li jl. Bi □□□□□□ 10 Honofable Stephen M. McNamee 1 Senior United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-