Kriston et al v. USA et al
ORDER ADOPTING 172 RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 168 MOTION TO DISMISS PARTIES. The 172 Recommendation is ADOPTED. The 168 Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Party is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims asserted by the Entity Pla intiffs. All claims asserted on behalf of American Royalty Crusade, Kings Court Command, LLC, and Kings Court Command Corporation are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The caption in all further pleadings shall reflect this change, by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 01/28/2010.(wjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Civil Action No. 09-cv-00909-MSK-MEH ZACHARY KRISTON, AMERICAN ROYALTY CRUSADE, KINGS COURT COMMAND, LLC, KINGS COURT COMMAND CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. TONY PEROULIS, HARRY PEROULIS, DEL TURNER, VENETIAN HOTEL OPERATIONS, LLC, HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, LLC, E. ROBERT SPEAR, HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT INC, CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MICHAEL ACCARDI, SANDRA RATANA, DARYLL ROSENBLATT, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PARTIES THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge (#172), that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Party (#168) be granted. No objections were filed.1
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive motion, the parties may file specific, written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which timely and specific objection is made. See U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). When no party files
This case was originally brought by Plaintiff Zachary Kriston, an individual, and three entities, American Royalty Crusade, Kings Court Command, LLLC, and Kings Court Command Corporation (the "Entity Plaintiffs"). Despite the rule in this circuit that a corporation must be represented to appear in federal court, the Entity Plaintiffs never obtained counsel. See Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute because the Entity Plaintiffs were unrepresented by counsel. Based on the Entity Plaintiffs' representation in their response to the Order to Show Cause that they intended to obtain counsel, the Court set a deadline for the entry of counsel. No such counsel entered an appearance. Instead, the Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the claims asserted by the Entity Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).2 The Magistrate Judge recommends that this motion be granted. The Court agrees finding no valid reason why the Entity Plaintiffs should not be permitted to voluntarily dismiss the claims they assert in this action. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) (2) The Recommendation (#172) is ADOPTED. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Party (#168) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims asserted by the Entity Plaintiffs. (3) All claims asserted on behalf of American Royalty Crusade, Kings Court
objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the court has discretion to apply whichever standard of review it deems appropriate. See Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). In this case, it is irrelevant what standard of review the Court applies, as it would agree with the Recommendation under any standard of review. The motion also sought leave to amend the complaint. The Magistrate Judge addressed this request separately and the issue is not currently before the Court.
Command, LLC, and Kings Court Command Corporation are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The caption in all further pleadings shall reflect this change. Dated this 28th day of January, 2010 BY THE COURT:
Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?