Best Western International Incorporated v. Richland Hotel GP LLC et al

Filing 31

ORDER re REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson. (Doc. 30.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Best Western's Motion for Defa ult Judgment against Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar is GRANTED. (Doc. 17.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Best Western and against Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar in the amount of $145,350.20 ($134,984.05 + $10,366.15 for attorney's fees, costs and non-taxable expenses). The Judgment shall earn interest at the agreed uponrate of 1.5% per month (18 % per annum) from the date of entry of judgment until paid in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Judgment in the amount of $145,350.20 is binding on Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar jointly and severally. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the remaining claims alleged in the Complaint, Counts 4-10. All remaining pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 2/27/12. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Best Western International, Inc., an
Arizona non-profit corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, )
)
a Texas Limited Liability Company;
)
Gurmukh Kullar, a Nevada resident,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. CV-11-1246-PHX-SMM (LOA)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER

16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging breach of contract, federal

18

trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended

19

(the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), and related common law and Arizona statutory

20

causes of action. (Doc. 1.) This matter was assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge

21

Lawrence O. Anderson. (Doc. 6.) On January 18, 2012, Magistrate Judge Anderson filed

22

a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 30.) To date, no objections have been

23

filed.

24

STANDARD OF REVIEW

25

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

26

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

27

made,” and “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)(1)(C); see also Baxter

1

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.

2

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

3

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

4

factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.

5

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States

6

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

7

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to

8

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s

9

legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

10

(9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be

11

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v.

12

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

13

(9th Cir. 1980)).
DISCUSSION

14
15

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

16

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendants thereto, the Court

17

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION

18
19

For the reasons set forth,

20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and

21

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson. (Doc. 30.)

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Best Western’s Motion for Default Judgment

23

against Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar is

24

GRANTED. (Doc. 17.)

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Best

26

Western and against Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant

27

Gurmukh Kullar in the amount of $145,350.20 ($134,984.05 + $10,366.15 for attorney’s

28
-2-

1

fees, costs and non-taxable expenses). The Judgment shall earn interest at the agreed upon

2

rate of 1.5% per month (18% per annum) from the date of entry of judgment until paid in full.

3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Judgment in the amount of $145,350.20 is

5

binding on Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar

6

jointly and severally.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the remaining

8

claims alleged in the Complaint, Counts 4-10. All remaining pending motions are denied

9

as moot.

10

DATED this 27th day of February, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-