Lopez v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. et al

Filing 202

ORDER: The objections to the Magistrate Judge's Orders are denied. Denying 149 Second (Amended) Motion to Enforce Attorney's Lien. Judgment is to be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the lien claimant and the liens are dismissed with prejudice, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/1/2012. (eseam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE

Civil Case No. 11-cv-00081-LTB-BNB
BRENDA M. LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNCOR ENERGY (U.S.A.) INC., a Delaware corporation; and SUNCOR ENERGY
SERVICES INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________

This case is before me on the Orders and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge (Doc 195). In it, the Magistrate Judge orders that: (1) Defendants’ Motion for
Reasonable Expenses (Doc 139) is granted; (2) the Defendants are awarded their
reasonable expenses including attorneys fees in the amount of $10,990.80; and (3) the
award is against Nina Kazazian and Kazazian & Associates LLC and not against the
Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge recommends: (1) that the Second (Amended) Motion for
to Enforce Attorney’s Lien (Doc 149) be denied; and (2) that Judgment on the Notice of
Lien (Doc 122); Second (reasserted) Notice of Lien (Doc 148); and Amended Second
Notice of Lien Under C.R.S. §§ 12-5-119 and 120 (Doc 170) be entered in favor of the
Plaintiff and against the named claimant and the liens be dismissed with prejudice.
Nina Kazazian, pro se, and Kazazian & Associates LLC, have filed their objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s orders and recommendation (Doc 197). Plaintiff has responded

to the objections (Doc 201).
I have reviewed the Orders pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) whether they are
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I have review the recommendations de novo.
I conclude that the Orders are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. On de
novo review, I conclude that the recommendations are correct. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Orders are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Second (Amended) Motion to Enforce
Attorney’s Lien (Doc 149) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment on the Notice of Lien (Doc 122); Second
(Reasserted) Notice of Lien (Doc 148), and Amended Notice of Lien Under C.R.S. §§ 12-5119 and 120 (Doc 170) is to be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the lien claimant
and the liens are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
DATED: October 1, 2012

2