Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting with leave to amend 55 Motion to Strike (see order for details) and denying with respect to Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 11 and First Sentence of 12; ORDER accepting and adopting Report and Recommendations re 61 Report and Recommendation; Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/3/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2
3

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

4

Plaintiff,
vs.

5
6

OMICS GROUP INC., et al.,

7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02022-GMN-VCF
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States

9
10

Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 61), which states that Plaintiff Federal Trade

11

Commission’s (“the FTC”) Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, (ECF No. 55), should be

12

granted in part and denied in part.
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a

13
14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

1122 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.

24

///

25

///

Page 1 of 2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 61), is

3

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FTC’s Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 55), is

4
5

GRANTED with respect to Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Nos. 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and

6

20.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FTC’s Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 55), is

8

GRANTED with respect to the second sentence of Defendants’ Affirmative Defense No. 12,

9

which states: “Moreover, any monetary relief awarded to the FTC should be reduced by what

10
11

the Defendants have paid in taxes and other costs.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FTC’s Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 55), is

12

GRANTED with leave to amend with respect to Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Nos. 10

13

and 17.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FTC’s Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 55), is

15

DENIED with respect to Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and

16

the first sentence of 12.

17
18

3
DATED this _____ day of January, 2018.

19
20
21

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

22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2