HSBC Bank USA, N.A v. Williston Investment Group LLC et al

Filing 43

ORDER that 22 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. FURTHER ORDERED that 19 Motion for Leave to File Crossclaim is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/11/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al.,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-CV-331 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

v.
WILLISTON INVESTMENT GROUP
LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation

14
15

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 22).
No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

I.

Background
This case presents a dispute regarding real properly located at 1632 North Torrey Pines

Drive #202, Las Vegas Nevada, 89108 (“the property”).

The property was subject to a

homeowner’s association foreclosure sale in 2013.
On February 2, 2017, plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, N.A. filed a complaint, naming as
defendants Chateau Bordeaux Owner’s Association, Nevada Association Services, Inc. (“NAS”),
and Williston Investment Group, LLC. (ECF No. 1). On February 28, 2017, plaintiff filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of NAS. (ECF No. 10). Chateau Bordeaux Owner’s Association now
requests leave of the court to bring a cross-complaint against NAS. (ECF No. 19). The HOA
asserts that NAS, as the company hired to collect delinquent assessments related to the property
and act as the foreclosure trustee, has superior knowledge of the underlying case facts and adding
NAS is in the interest of judicial economy. Id.

1

II.

Discussion

2

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

3

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

4

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

5

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

7

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

8

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

9

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

10

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

11

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

12

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

13

objections were made).

14

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

15

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

16

recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the

17

magistrate judge’s findings.

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

20

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 22) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in

21

its entirety.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Chateau Bordeaux Owner’s Association’s
motion for leave to file crossclaim (ECF No. 19) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED January 11, 2018.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Upon reviewing the

-2-