Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Bass v. Harris

United States District Court, District of Nevada

December 16, 2014

GLEN ALEXANDER BASS, Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES HARRIS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman. (Doc. # 75). Defendant Titan International USA (hereinafter “defendant” or “Titan”) filed an objection, (doc. # 76), to which plaintiff Glenn Alexander Bass (hereinafter “plaintiff”) responded, (doc. # 77).

I. Background

On June 21, 2011, plaintiff brought the instant action against defendant Titan, its individual co-defendants James Harris (“Harris”) and John Braff (“Braff”), and numerous other unnamed defendants. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff alleged that defendants owed plaintiff money for work performed under his employment, compensation, and software license agreements with defendant Titan. (Doc. # 76).

The parties engaged in a settlement conference on April 9, 2013, and reached a settlement agreement which was reduced to writing. (Doc. # 59). As a result, the instant action was dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 69).

The agreement discharged the individual defendants from liability. (Doc. # 76). Defendant Titan agreed to pay $30, 000 within 60 days of execution of the settlement agreement, and a further $100, 000 to be paid in three equal installments within three years from the date of the first payment. (Doc. # 76-1). These conditions were set forth at paragraph 2, entitled “payment.” (Doc. # 76-1). In exchange for this payment, defendants were permitted to continue using software created and developed by plaintiff. (Doc. # 77).

However, at paragraph 3 of the agreement, entitled “security for Titan’s payment, ” defendant also agreed that in the event of default on payment obligations, it would cease using any and all software created or developed by plaintiff. (Doc. # 76-1).

The agreement provided that defendant would have ten days to cure default, and would be required to cease use on the eleventh day if it did not comply. (Doc. # 76-1). This paragraph also provided that defendant would physically turn over the software and eliminate it from its systems by the fifteenth day of default. (Doc. # 76-1).

On or about November 1, 2013, defendant made the initial payment of $30, 000. (Doc. # 76-1). On September 11, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce settlement agreement and reduce to judgment. (Doc. # 71). Plaintiff stated that defendant had failed to make its first installment payment within the requisite one-year period. (Doc. # 71). Accordingly, plaintiff requested that the court reduce the settlement to judgment. (Doc. # 71).

Defendant Titan did not file a response. However, defendant Harris filed a notice of letter in response to plaintiff’s motion on behalf of defendant Titan. (Doc. # 74).

Judge Hoffman then considered the motion and issued a report and recommendation. (Doc. # 75). He noted that a corporation must appear by licensed counsel, and that failure to comply with this requirement may result in default or dismissal. (Doc. # 75). Because defendant failed to comply with this requirement, Judge Hoffman recommended that plaintiff’s motion be granted. (Doc. # 75). Defendant then filed the instant objection through counsel. (Doc. # 76).

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); LR IB 3-2. Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 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). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), a party may object to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge within fourteen days from the date of service of the findings and recommendations. LR IB 3-2(a). Similarly, Local Rule 7-2 provides that a party must file an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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