Rain Design, Inc. v. Spinido, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00349
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 19–cv–00349–RM–KMT

RAIN DESIGN, INC, and KOK HONG LYE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SPINIDO, INC., GOMFFER, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the February 25, 2020 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 49) to (1) deny Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 43); and (2) grant Plaintiffs 60 days from the date of this Order in which to properly serve Defendants and file proof of service with the court. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 49 at pp. 11-12.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.) The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection 1s filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”) The Recommendation 1s, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows (1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No.49) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court; (2) Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 43) is DENIED without prejudice; (3) The Clerk’s entry of default (ECF No. 21) is SET ASIDE; (4) Plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the date of this Order in which to properly serve Defendants and file proof of service with the court; and (5) Plaintiffs may move for an order of substituted service, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Colo. R. Civ. P. 4, within 14 days of the date of this Order. DATED this 11th day of March, 2020. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge