UV2, LLC v. EMC Telecom Corporation

Filing 99

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 97 , 98 ) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Reports and Recommendations (Doc. 93 and 94 ) are ADOPTED IN FULL. The objections to the answers (Doc. 67, 75) are SUSTAINED. Plainti ff shall submit a proposed form of judgment within thirty days of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 92 ) is ADOPTED IN PART. The Applications for a Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 51 , 52 ) are stayed until the conc lusion of the state court proceedings (Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, UV2, LLC v. Digital Ventures, LLC, CV-2009-054788). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED UV2, LLC, Double D Holdings, LLC, and Pink Bird Media, Inc. shall file a joint status report regarding the state case ninety days from the date of this Order and every ninety days thereafter. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/29/13. (LAD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

UV2, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
EMC Telecom Corporation,
13
Defendant,
14
AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-01269-PHX-ROS
ORDER

16
17
18

Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor UV2, LLC filed Applications for a Writ of Garnishment

19

against the following entities: Double D Holdings, LLC; Pink Bird Media, Inc.; CC Bill,

20

LLC; and WMM Holdings, LLC. The proceedings were referred to Magistrate Judge

21

Michelle H. Burns. On May 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Burns issued a Report and

22

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the applications regarding Double D Holdings,

23

LLC and Pink Bird Media, Inc. be stayed pending the outcome of state-court proceedings.

24

UV2 filed objections, arguing a stay would be inappropriate. On May 21, 2013, Magistrate

25

Judge Burns issued two other R&Rs, recommending that judgment be entered against CC

26

Bill, LLC and WMM Holdings, LLC. No objections were filed to these latter R&Rs.

27

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

28

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

1

filed timely objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the district court’s review of the part

2

objected to is to be de novo. Id. But no review is needed if no objections are filed. Schmidt

3

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this

4

Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are

5

made, but not otherwise.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

6

No objections were made to the R&Rs regarding CC Bill, LLC and WMM Holdings,

7

LLC. Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&Rs addressed to those entities in full. UV2 did

8

file objections to the R&R regarding Double D Holdings, LLC and Pink Bird Media, Inc.

9

But, having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court concludes a stay is appropriate for the

10

reasons outlined by the Magistrate Judge.

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 97, 98) are GRANTED.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Reports and Recommendations (Doc. 93 and 94)

14

are ADOPTED IN FULL. The objections to the answers (Doc. 67, 75) are SUSTAINED.

15

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of judgment within thirty days of this Order.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 92) is

17

ADOPTED IN PART. The Applications for a Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 51, 52) are stayed

18

until the conclusion of the state court proceedings (Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa

19

County, UV2, LLC v. Digital Ventures, LLC, CV-2009-054788).

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED UV2, LLC, Double D Holdings, LLC, and Pink Bird

21

Media, Inc. shall file a joint status report regarding the state case ninety days from the date

22

of this Order and every ninety days thereafter.

23

DATED this 29th day of July, 2013.

24
25
26
27
28
-2-