McDonald v. Navy Federal Financial Group, LLC ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 VALERIE MCDONALD, Case No. 2:23-cv-01325-ART-EJY 4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 NVAY FEDERAL FINANCIAL GROUP, 6 LLC, 7 Defendant. 8 Pro se Plaintiff Valerie McDonald brings this action against Defendant 9 Navy Federal Credit Union for damages allegedly arising from conduct by 10 Defendant that violated various state and federal statutes and breached 11 contractual obligations and fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff. Before the Court 12 are two Screening Orders from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. 13 Youchah (ECF Nos. 4, 15). Each Screening Order also includes a Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that certain claims be dismissed. the 15 Court will also address Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 11) and 16 Plaintiff’s Motion for Update (ECF No. 27). 17 I. Judge Youchah’s First Order and R&R 18 19 Plaintiff did not object to Judge Youchah’s first Order and R&R (ECF No. 20 4). The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 22 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 23 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 24 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 25 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 26 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 27 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 28 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 1 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 record in order to accept the recommendation”). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review 4 and is satisfied Judge Youchah did not clearly err. Having reviewed the R&R and 5 the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 6 II. Judge Youchah’s Second Order and R&R 7 Plaintiff did object (ECF No. 16) to Judge Youchah’s second Order and R&R 8 (ECF No. 15). This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 9 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 10 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and 11 recommendation, then the Court is required to “make a de novo determination 12 of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 13 Id. Here, the Court’s review is de novo on the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Objection. 14 Those issues are 1) Plaintiff did not provide voluntary written consent for a 15 Magistrate Judge to participate in this case; 2) Defendant was found liable for 16 similar claims in another federal court and Judge Youchah’s recommendation is 17 not consistent with precedent; 3) Judge Youchah’s recommendation conflicts 18 with an Order in a different case brough by Plaintiff in this District alleging 19 similar violations; and 4) Judge Youchah wrongly recommends dismissing 20 Plaintiff’s claim under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 21 First, Plaintiff is incorrect about the necessity of written consent for Judge 22 Youchah to issue screening orders and R&R’s. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides 23 specific procedures for a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain pretrial 24 matters pending before the court and to submit recommendations for the 25 disposition of other pretrial matters. None of those procedures were violated 26 here. 27 Second, Plaintiff’s vague reference to a stipulated order by another federal 28 court finding Defendant liable for similar claims is not a sufficient basis for 1 rejecting Judge Youchah’s recommendation. Unless an order from another court 2 involves the same parties and same claims, it ordinarily will not have any 3 preclusive or precedential effect. Absent a citation to the case or order, this Court 4 will not reject Judge Youchah’s recommendation on this ground. 5 Third, Plaintiff’s reference to a different case in this district, where she 6 sued a different Defendant for similar violations as alleged here, is not a 7 sufficient basis for this Court to reject Judge Youchah’s recommendation. 8 Different parties, different facts, and different allegations can result in different 9 dispositions. The cited case has no preclusive or precedential effect on this 10 action. 11 Fourth, Judge Youchah’s recommendation on Plaintiff’s claim for violation 12 of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act finds that Plaintiff did not allege 13 reliance, as required by the statute. Judge Youchah recommends dismissal on 14 this ground, and Plaintiff’s objection does not allege reliance. The Court will 15 therefore not reject Judge Youchah’s recommendation on this ground. 16 Having reviewed the R&R, the record in this case, and Plaintiff’s Objection, 17 the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 18 III. Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 19 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 11) following 20 purported service of Defendant (ECF Nos. 7, 9). Defendant filed a Motion to 21 Quash Purported Service (ECF No. 10) that Judge Youchah granted (ECF No. 22 13). 23 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), entry of default is proper when “a party against 24 whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 25 defend.” Because Defendant filed a Motion to Quash Purported Service (ECF No. 26 10), an entry of default is improper in this case. Plaintiff’s Motion for default 27 judgment is therefore denied. 28 1 IV. Plaintiff's Motion for Update 2 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Update (ECF No. 27) on this Court’s decision 3 || regarding Judge Youchah’s second Screening Order and R&R (ECF No. 15). 4 || Because this Order provides Plaintiff with all the relief she requests in the Motion 5 || for Update, that Motion is denied as moot. 6 V. Conclusion 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Youchah’s first Report and 8 || Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiffs Fourth 9 || Claim for Tortious Interference with Contract and Fifth Claim for Unjust 10 || Enrichment from the First Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice 11 || because Plaintiff cannot state these claims as a matter of law. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judge Youchah’s second Report and 13 || Recommendation (ECF No. 15) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's 2nd 14 || Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s 15 || First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Claims for Relief 16 || are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to serve Navy Federal Credit 17 || Union with a Summons, her Third Amended Complaint, and a copy of Judge 18 || Youchah’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) no later than ninety (90) 19 || days from the date of this Order. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment 21 || (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Update (ECF No. 27) 23 || is DENIED as moot. 24 25 DATED THIS 1st day of July 2024. 26 Ans □ jlosead Jen 27 ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE