Reflex Media, Inc. v. Richard Easton Limited

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 REFLEX MEDIA, INC., a Nevada ) 4 corporation; and CLOVER 8 INVESTMENTS ) PTE. LTD., a Singapore corporation, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY 5 ) 6 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER vs. ) 7 ) RICHARD EASTON LIMITED, a Delaware ) 8 corporation, d/b/a www.FirstDateClub.com; ) RICHARD EASTON, an individual; MARIA ) 9 JOSE DIAZ, an individual; NELIDA TEJEDA ) 10 ALVAREZ, an individual; JORGE OSBALDO ) RODRIGUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1-10, ) 11 inclusive, ) ) 12 Defendants. ) 13 ) 14 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 15 Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, (ECF No. 51), which recommends that Plaintiffs’ Request 16 for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 33), as to Defendants Maria Diaz, Nelida Alvarez, Jorge 17 Rodriguez, and Richard Easton (in his individual capacity) be denied without prejudice. 18 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 19 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 20 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 21 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 22 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 24 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 25 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 1 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 2 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 3 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Here, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Objection to the Report and Recommendation, 5 (ECF No. 52). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 51), is 8 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 10 33), as to Defendants Diaz, Alvarez, Rodriguez, and Easton (in his individual capacity) be 11 DENIED without prejudice. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be advised to refile their Motion for Entry 13 of Clerk’s Default as to Defendants Diaz, Alvarez, and Rodriguez, and that once default is 14 entered, Plaintiffs proceed with a motion for default judgment against all Defendants except 15 Easton in his individual capacity. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be advised that default and/or default 17 judgment cannot be pursued against Easton, in his individual capacity, at this time because he is 18 currently participating in the litigation. 19 DATED this __1_9_ day of November, 2021. 20 21 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 22 United States District Court 23 24 25