Laake v. Dirty World LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Laake, No. CV-19-05444-PHX-DMF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Dirty World LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and file the proposed 16 First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 17.) On December 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to 17 Amend Complaint and attached a proposed First Amended Complaint with drafting 18 changes. (Id.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine for a Report 19 and Recommendation. (Doc. 20.) On January 8, 2020, Magistrate Judge Fine filed a Report 20 and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff be permitted to file the proposed First 21 Amended Complaint with the drafting changes indicated by Plaintiff; however, not 22 permitting Plaintiff to include in his proposed First Amended Complaint changes that relate 23 to GoDaddy Inc. (Id.) Further, Magistrate Judge Fine recommends that Plaintiff not be 24 permitted to add GoDaddy Inc. as a defendant as set forth in his proposed First Amended 25 Complaint. (Id.) To date, no objections have been filed. 26 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 27 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must 28 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is 1 made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 2 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); see also 3 Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified 4 Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s 5 recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s 6 factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on applicable law. Orand 7 v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. 8 Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). 9 By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to 10 challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate 11 Judge’s legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 12 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a 13 factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); 14 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 15 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)). 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 18 objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 19 adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the 23 Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 20.) 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s 25 Motion to Amend Complaint. (Doc. 17.) 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permitting Plaintiff to file the proposed First 27 Amended Complaint with the drafting changes indicated by Plaintiff in the proposed First 28 Amended Complaint attached to Plaintiff’s motion. However, Plaintiff is not permitted to 1 include in his proposed First Amended Complaint changes that relate to GoDaddy Inc. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is not permitted to add GoDaddy Inc. 3 || as □ defendant in this action. 4 Dated this 6th day of March, 2020. 5 ° Li jl. By □□□ □□□ 7 Honofable Stephen M. McNamee g Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-