Hakkasan LV, LLC et al v. Adamczyk et al

Filing 85

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accepting and Adopting 84 Report and Recommendation, denying 77 Motion for Permanent Injunction, denying 76 Motion for Default Judgment. Claims against defendants are dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 HAKKASAN LV, LLC, et al., 4 5 6 Plaintiffs, vs. MARK DANIEL ADAMCZYK, et al., 7 8 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-01717-GMN-NJK ORDER 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 11 Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 84), which recommends that the Court denies the 12 Renewed Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 76), and that the claims against Defendants 13 iDrive Orlando, LLC; James Patrick Adamcyzk; and My Domain Holdings, LLC (collectively 14 “Defendants”) be dismissed. Because of this, Judge Koppe further recommends that the Court 15 deny the Amended Motion for Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 77), filed by Plaintiffs 16 Hakkasan LV, LLC, and Hakkasan Limited (collectively “Plaintiffs”). 17 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 18 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 19 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 20 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 21 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 22 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is 23 not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 24 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized 25 that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation Page 1 of 2 1 where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 2 1122 (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. 84), is 6 7 8 9 10 11 ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 76), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 77), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Defendants are DISMISSED. 12 13 28 DATED this ___ day of April, 2017. 14 15 16 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?