Zeier et al v. Zeier et al

Filing 66

ORDER deferring ruling on 42 and 44 Motions to Dismiss and adopting the 65 Report and Recommendation. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 3/18/2019. (cpear)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 18-cv-01293-RM-STV
STERLING ZEIER;
PAMELA ZEIER; and
LEGACY 1, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.
G.F. INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company;
GLOBAL WEALTH MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT ADVISORY, INC.,
a Florida corporation;
ANDREW G. COSTA, an individual; and
ANDREW M. COSTA, an individual,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the February 28, 2019, Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 65) to (1) defer
judgment on the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 42, 44) filed by Defendants G.F. Investment
Services, LLC, Global Wealth Management Investment Advisory, Inc., and Andrew M. Costa,
and (2) transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
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. 65, pages 10-

11.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by
any party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)
The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Varholak’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, accepted and adopted as an order of this Court.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1)

ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 65) in its entirety;

(2)

DEFERS ruling and judgment on the two Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 42, 44);
and

(3)

DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer this action to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and to close this
case.

DATED this 18th day of March, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2