Lopez v. D. Westwood, Inc.

Opinion

* * *

ARIANNY CELESTE LOPEZ, et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-1842 JCM (BNW)

Plaintiff(s), ORDER

v.

Defendant(s).

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler’s report and recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 52). She recommends that plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint (ECF No. 42) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, she recommends granting plaintiffs leave to amend their false endorsement claims and denying plaintiffs leave to amend their false advertising claims. No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis in original)). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Weksler’s R&R (ECF No. 52) be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 42) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the court 1 grants plaintiffs leave to amend their false endorsement claims and denies plaintiffs leave to amend their false advertising claims. DATED November 1, 2021. Mette © Atala UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

es C. Mahan District Judge -2-