Hakkasan LV, LLC et al v. Adamczyk et al

Filing 66

ORDER that the 64 Report and Recommendation is Accepted and Adopted in full. Plaintiffs' 63 Motion for Attorneys' Fees is Granted in part and Denied in part. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $28,610.80. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/9/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD) (Main Document 66 replaced on 5/10/2016) (SLD).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

HAKKASAN LV, LLC, a Nevada limited
)
liability company, HAKKASAN LIMITED, a )
foreign private limited company,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
MARK DANIEL ADAMCZYK, an
)
individual; iDRIVE ORLANDO, LLC,
)
a Florida limited liability company;
)
JAMES PATRICK ADAMCZYK, an
)
individual; MYDOMAINHOLDINGS,
)
LLC, a foreign entity,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 2:14–cv–01717–GMN–NJK
ORDER

13

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
14

Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe, (ECF No. 64), which recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
15

Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 63) be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
16

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a
17

United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1–4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
18

D. Nev. R. IB 3–2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo
19

determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject,
20

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3–2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is
22

not required to conduct “any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”
23

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a
24

district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where
25

Page 1 of 2

1

no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122

2

(9th Cir. 2003).

3

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 64) is

6
7
8
9
10
11

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 63)
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be awarded attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $28,610.80.

9
DATED this _____ day of May, 2016.

12
13
14
15
16
17

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2