HSBC Bank USA, N.A v. Williston Investment Group LLC et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 2:17-CV-331 JCM (CWH)
WILLISTON INVESTMENT GROUP
LLC, et al.,
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation
(“R&R”). (ECF No. 22).
No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
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.
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at
all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made).
Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine
whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the
magistrate judge’s findings.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge
Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 22) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in
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
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Upon reviewing the
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?