Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Saticoy Bay, LLC

Filing 31

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 30 Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 petitioner's cross-motion for an order r equiring respondent to comply with the subpoena be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and that 19 respondent's motion to quash be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY,

8
9
10

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 2:17-CV-913 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
SATICOY BAY, LLC,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

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

14

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 30). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has

15

since passed.

16

On March 31, 2017, petitioner Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a request for a

17

subpoena seeking information and documents related to every property that respondent Saticoy

18

Bay, LLC (“Saticoy”) and its affiliates held or claimed an interest in as the result of a HOA

19

foreclosure sale pursuant to NRS § 116.3116 conducted on or after September 18, 2009. (ECF

20

No. 1-2).

21

On June 14, 2017, petitioner filed a cross-motion for an order requiring respondent to

22

comply with the subpoena. (ECF No. 18). Respondent filed an opposition (ECF No. 24), and

23

petitioner filed a reply. (ECF No. 26). On June 15, respondent filed a motion to quash petitioner’s

24

motion to enforce the subpoena. (ECF No. 19). petitioner filed an opposition (ECF No. 17), and

25

respondent filed a reply. (ECF No. 25). On July 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Foley held a hearing

26

on the motions. (ECF No. 28). On August 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Foley issued the instant

27

report and recommendation. (ECF No. 30).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

objections were made).
Upon review of the order and the underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears

13
14

to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in their entirety.

15

Accordingly,

16

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

17

Foley’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 30) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

18

entirety.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s cross-motion for an order requiring

20

respondent to comply with the subpoena (ECF No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in

21

part and DENIED in part, and that respondent’s motion to quash (ECF No. 19) be, and the same

22

hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with the following:

23

1. Respondent Saticoy shall provide petitioner FHFA with the Assessor’s Parcel
Number (APN), legal description, and street address (including unit number, if
any, and city, state, and zip code) of each property that respondent and
respondent’s affiliates have held or claimed an interest in and that was the
subject of an HOA foreclosure completed under Nevada Revised Statute §
116.3116 between September 18, 2009 and the present.

24
25
26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

2. Respondent shall not be required at this time to provide petitioner with any other
information requested in the subpoena.

2
DATED August 31, 2017.
3
4

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-