Rossi Ventures, Inc. et al v. Pasquini et al

Filing 78

ORDER adopting and affirming Report and Recommendations 56 , overrulling 56 Objection, denying 76 Motion for Leave, and granting 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/28/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02838-CMA-BNB
ROSSI VENTURES, INC., and
Y. MELINDA PASQUINI,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ANTONIO PASQUINI,
PASQUINI FRANCHISING, LLC,
PASQUINI’S RESTAURANTS, LLC,
PASQUINI’S CHERRY CREEK, LLC,
PASQUINI’S 17th, LLC, and
PASQUINI’S COLFAX, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING APRIL 9, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 9.) On April 9, 2012,
Judge Boland issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 56), advising the Court to grant
Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. # 14) with specifications set forth in
the Recommendation. On April 23, 2012, Defendants timely filed “Objections to the
April 9, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (Doc. # 58), to which
Plaintiffs responded on May 8, 2012 (Doc. # 62).

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”
In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
In the instant case, Defendants’ objections call for the Court to reject Judge
Boland’s Recommendation and to deny Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion.
However, having conducted a de novo review of this case, including carefully reviewing
all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, Defendants’ objections, and Plaintiffs’
response thereto, the Court determines that Judge Boland’s Recommendation is
correct, notwithstanding the arguments raised by Defendants. As such, the Court
adopts Judge Boland’s thorough and detailed factual summary and legal analysis.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1.

The Recommendation of Judge Boland (Doc. # 56), issued April 9, 2012,
is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED as an Order of this Court.

2.

Defendants’ objections (Doc. # 58) are OVERRULED, and their related
request for a hearing is DENIED.

1

“For purpose of reference, motions for preliminary injunction are generally treated as
dispositive motions . . . .” Georgacarakos v. Wiley, No. 07-cv-01712, 2008 WL 4216265, at *19
(D. Colo. Sept. 12, 2008) (unpublished).
2

3.

Pursuant to the Recommendation:
a.

Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Preliminary Injunction” (Doc. # 14) is
GRANTED as specified in the Recommendation.

b.

Defendants and “their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
all other persons in active concert or participation with them, [are]
preliminarily enjoined from use of the name ‘Pasquini’s Pizzeria’
or any variation thereof in connection with the operation of the
restaurant located at 240 Milwaukee Street, Denver, Colorado.”
- and -

c.
4.

Plaintiffs are required to post security in the amount of $50,000.

Defendants’ “Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief for Objections
to United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” (Doc. # 76) is
DENIED.

DATED: June

28

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3