Furniture Royal Inc v. Shnadig International Corp. et al

Filing 65

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 51 Judge Hoffman's R&R be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 37 plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with 51 Judge Hoffman's R&R. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/26/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

FURNITURE ROYAL, INC.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:18-CV-318 JCM (DJA)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SCHNADIG INTERNATIONAL CORP,
et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation
(“R&R”). (ECF No. 51).
Also before the court is Furniture Royal, Inc.’s (“plaintiff”) motion to amend. (ECF No.
37). Shnadig International Corp. (“defendant”) filed a response (ECF No. 40), to which plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 47).
Judge Hoffman found that plaintiff’s proposed amendment was futile as to all claims
except those for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

(ECF No. 51 at 3).

Accordingly, Judge Hoffman recommends that plaintiff’s motion to amend be granted as to the
fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims and denied as to the remainder. 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).

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

objections were made).

8

The parties did not object to Judge Hoffman’s R&R; to the contrary, they have proceeded

9

on plaintiff’s latest amended complaint (ECF No. 53). Nevertheless, this court conducted a de

10

novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon

11

reviewing the recommendation and attendant circumstances, this court finds good cause appears

12

to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in full.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Hoffman’s R&R

15

(ECF No. 51) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint

17

(ECF No. 37) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent

18

with Judge Hoffman’s R&R (ECF No. 51).

19

DATED February 26, 2020.

20
21

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-