Greater San Diego County Association of Realtors, Inc. v. Sandicor, Inc. et al

Filing 141

ORDER Adopting 140 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; and Denying 136 Ex Parte Motion to Enforce Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ordered that Judge Crawford's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety; and PSAR and NSDCAR's Motion to Enforce Judgment is denied. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/24/2019. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, INC.,

15
16
17
18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
AND

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 16cv96-MMA (KSC)

v.
SANDICOR, INC.; NORTH SAN
DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS; and PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS,

[Doc. No. 140]
DENYING EX PARTE MOTION TO
ENFORCE JUDGMENT

Defendants.

19

[Doc. No. 136]

20

On April 20, 2018, the parties executed a settlement agreement (the “Settlement

21

Agreement”) and, on September 25, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of

22

the above-captioned case. See Doc. Nos. 115, 134. The case was dismissed pursuant to

23

the stipulation and the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

24

Doc. No. 135. On October 22, 2018, Defendants North San Diego County Association of

25

Realtors (“NSDCAR”) and Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors (“PSAR”) filed an

26

ex parte motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Doc. No. 136. Plaintiff filed a

27

response in opposition (Doc. No. 138), to which PSAR and NSDCAR replied (Doc. No.

28

139). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford for
1
16cv96-MMA (KSC)

1

preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to Title 28, section 636(b)(1).

2

Judge Crawford issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report recommending that the

3

motion be denied. Doc. No. 140.

4

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

6

. . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,

7

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28 U.S.C. §

8

636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). When

9

the parties do not object to a Report and Recommendation, the district court is not

10

required to conduct “any review at all.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see

11

also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna-

12

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

13

Here, objections to the Report and Recommendation were due no later than June

14

17, 2019. Doc. No. 140 at 20. To date, no objections have been filed. See Docket. The

15

Court has made a review and determination in accordance with the requirements of 28

16

U.S.C. § 636 and applicable case law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the

17

Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

18
19
20
21
22
23

1.

Judge Crawford’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its

entirety; and
2.

PSAR and NSDCAR’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (Doc. No. 136) is

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2019

24
25
26
27
28
2
16cv96-MMA (KSC)