Pacific Specialty Insurance Company v. Poirier

D. Colorado

Pacific Specialty Insurance Company v. Poirier

DecidedAugust 7, 2019

Docket1:18-cv-00880

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Pacific Specialty Insurance Company v. Poirier, (D. Colo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 18-cv-00880-PAB-NYW PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAVANNA POIRIER and JASON MENDOZA, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang filed on July 8, 2019 [Docket No. 45]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 8, 2019. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45] is accepted. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket No. 39] is granted. 3. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint in the form found at Docket No. 39-5 within seven days of the date of this order.

DATED August 7, 2019. BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

1This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 18-cv-00880-PAB-NYW PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAVANNA POIRIER and JASON MENDOZA, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION _____________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang filed on July 8, 2019 [Docket No. 45]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 8, 2019. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“[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”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 45] is accepted. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint [Docket No. 39] is granted. 3. Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint in the form found at Docket No. 39-5 within seven days of the date of this order.

DATED August 7, 2019. BY THE COURT: s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

1This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pacific Specialty Insurance Company v. Poirier, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-specialty-insurance-company-v-poirier-cod-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack