Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rutledge v. Figuiredo

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 16, 2014

Leslie Rutledge, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
David Figuiredo, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe. (ECF No. 41.) Nominal Defendant Double Crown Resources, Inc. f/k/a Denarii Resources, Inc. ("Double Crown") filed an Objection (ECF No. 42). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will accept and adopt in full Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation in full.

I. BACKGROUND

The motion for attorney fees (ECF No. 37) was referred to Judge Koppe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and District of Nevada Local Rule IB 1-4. Judge Koppe recommended that this Court enter an order denying Double Crown's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 37). (ECF No. 41.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b).

III. DISCUSSION

In the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41), Judge Koppe recommends denial of the Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 37) based on Double Crown's failure to comply with Local Rule 54-16(b). In its Objection, Double Crown does not dispute that it failed to comply with Local Rule 54-16(b), but argues that Judge Koppe should have considered the motion as a bifurcated request for a determination of liability, with a full description in compliance with Local Rule 54-16(b) to follow this determination.

The Court is unpersuaded by Double Crown's argument, particularly because the Local Rule provides no mechanism for a bifurcated determination, and without a specific request from Double Crown, Judge Koppe committed no error in failing to consider Double Crown's motion as a bifurcated request for a determination of liability. The Court finds that Judge Koppe's findings are correct, and that Double Crown provides no basis for the Court to reverse her determination that Double Crown failed to comply with the applicable local rule. Accordingly, Judge Koppe's R&R will be accepted and adopted in full.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41) be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.