Mason et al v. Fantasy LLC, et al

Filing 78

ORDER adopting 55 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' 44 Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is granted in part, and denied in part, to wit, the Court: (i) GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to the extent it seeks to add as named Plaintiffs all persons who have filed the Consent to Join forms on the docket (ECF Nos. 9 , 10 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 32 , 33 ); (ii) DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to the extent it seeks to add factual allegations and legal claims. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 1/30/2015. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13–cv–02020–RM–KLM
JESSICA MASON,
MICHELLE CROSS,
ALLISON STEBBING, and
JAMIE TENCZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FANTASY, LLC d/b/a FANTASY GENTLEMEN’S CLUB, and
KEVIN EARDLEY,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the September 24, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 55) to grant, in part,
and deny, in part, Plaintiffs’ Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 44). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 55 at 7.) Despite
this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by either party.
(See generally Dkt.)

The Court concludes that Judge Mix’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is
no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note
(“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may
review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). The Recommendation is,
therefore, adopted.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 55) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and

(2)

Plaintiffs’ Partially Unopposed Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 44) is granted, in part, and denied, in part, to wit, the Court:
(i) GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it seeks to add as named Plaintiffs all persons
who have filed the Consent to Join forms on the docket (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 22,
32, 33);
(ii) DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it seeks to add factual allegations and legal
claims.
DATED this 30th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2