Prado-Guajardo v. Perez

Filing 62

ORDER that 57 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.FURTHER ORDERED that 38 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Martin Guzman Perez and Defendant El Rayo shall be allowed to argue that Diaz was partially at fault and adduce evidence tending to show comparative fault even though Diaz will no longer be a part of this case and further recovery against Diaz is precluded. FURTHER OR DERED that Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Perez's ultimate liability, if there is any, shall be reduced pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 17.245(1)(a) only to the extent that the fault allocated to Diaz by the jury, if any, exceeds $15,000. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/30/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

DEYSSI JANNETH PRADO-GUAJARDO, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
MARTIN GUZMAN PEREZ and EL
)
RAYO,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
)
MARTIN GUZMAN PEREZ,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHAYNA DIAZ,
)
)
Third-Party Defendant. )
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-00546-GMN-VCF
ORDER

16
17

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United

18

States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 57), which recommends that Third-Party

19

Defendant Shayna Diaz and Plaintiff Deyssi Janneth Prado-Guajardo’s Motion for

20

Determination of Good Faith Settlement, (ECF No. 38), be granted.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is
Page 1 of 2

1

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

2

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized

3

that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

4

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

5

1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

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

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 57), is

9

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Third-Party Defendant Shayna Diaz and Plaintiff

11

Deyssi Janneth Prado-Guajardo’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, (ECF

12

No. 38), is GRANTED.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Martin Guzman

14

Perez and Defendant El Rayo shall be allowed to argue that Diaz was partially at fault and

15

adduce evidence tending to show comparative fault even though Diaz will no longer be a part

16

of this case and further recovery against Diaz is precluded.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Perez’s

18

ultimate liability, if there is any, shall be reduced pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes §

19

17.245(1)(a) only to the extent that the fault allocated to Diaz by the jury, if any, exceeds

20

$15,000.

21
22

30
DATED this ___day of January, 2018.

23
24
25

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2