Branch Banking and Trust Company v. D.M.S.I., LLC et al

Filing 89

ORDER Affirming in its entirety 74 Report and Recommendation to Deny 54 Amended MOTION to Extend Time to Amend Answer and For Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaim. Defendants' Objection to the May 16, 2013 Report and Recommendation is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/21/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

Case No. 2:11-cv-01778-APG-VCF
ORDER

v.
D.M.S.I., L.L.C., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

On May 16, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach entered his Report and
15
Recommendation [Dkt. #74] recommending that Defendants’ Amended Motion to Extend
16
Deadline to Amend Answer and For Leave to File Amended Answer and Counterclaim
17
[Dkt. #54] be denied. On June 3, 2013, Defendants filed their Objection [Dkt. #79] to
18
that Recommendation.

On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Response [Dkt. #88] to

19
Defendants’ Objection.
20
Defendants’ Objection is incorrectly based upon LR-IB 3-2. That Rule addresses
21
recommendations of a Magistrate Judge made pursuant to LR-IB 1-4, 1-5, 1-6, and 1-7.
22
However, because Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s Recommendation is a determination
23
of a pretrial matter not specifically enumerated as an exception in 28 U.S.C. §
24
636(b)(1)(A), it is a determination made pursuant to LR-IB 1-3. Accordingly, review of
25
that Recommendation is based upon LR-IB 3-1. Because Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s
26
27
28

1

Recommendation is not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,” it is hereby affirmed.1 For

2

the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Objection to the May 16, 2013 Report and

3

Recommendation is hereby DENIED. The Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #74] is

4

affirmed in its entirety.
Dated: June 21, 2013

5
6

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even if review of the Recommendation was made pursuant to LR-IB 3-2, a de
novo determination of that Recommendation still would lead to the affirmation of the
Recommendation. The facts and arguments set forth in Plaintiff’s Response [Dkt. #88]
are persuasive and would be adopted by the Court. Particularly, Defendants’ primary
excuse for missing the applicable deadline is that Defendants and their counsel were
very busy. This does not constitute “good cause” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.
2