Pacific Ocean Alameda, LLC v. AmGuard Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: March 17, 2023
• Docket: 1:21-cv-02523
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 21-cv-02523-CMA-SKC

PACIFIC OCEAN ALAMEDA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, and WESTGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the March 1, 2023 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 49). Therein, Judge S. Kato Crews recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff Pacific Ocean Alameda, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (Doc. # 24) to add requests for exemplary damages under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102 against both Defendants. Judge Crews found that Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of willful and wanton conduct on the part of Defendants sufficient to support an award of exemplary damages. (Doc. # 49 at 6.) Further, Judge Crews noted that Plaintiff failed to file a proposed amended complaint as an exhibit with its Motion, so the court could not evaluate whether Plaintiff’s conclusory claims were indeed supported by sufficient factual allegations. (Id. at 5); see D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b). The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”)). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 49 at 6.) No party has filed any objection, and the time to do so has now expired. Having reviewed the Recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and applicable legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: e The March 1, 2023 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 49) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; and e Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint to Add Claim for Exemplary Damages (Doc. # 24) is DENIED. DATED: March 17, 2023 BY THE COURT: — Wie rn CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO Senior United States District Judge