United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, District Judge
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Cam
Ferenbach, (ECF No. 21), which recommends that Plaintiff
Maglula, Ltd.'s (“Plaintiffs”) Renewed Motion
for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 19), be granted in part and
denied in part. Specifically, the R&R makes three
recommendations: (1) the Court enter final judgment against
Defendant Anthony Lee (“Defendant”); (2) the
Court enter a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendant
from infringing Plaintiff's patents; and (3) the Court
deny Plaintiffs request for attorney fees. (R&R 10:1-8).
Neither party objected to the R&R.
Plaintiffs request for attorney fees, Judge Ferenbach
accepted Plaintiffs allegations of Defendant's willful
infringement and bad faith litigation as true, but he
concluded that the Court could not award fees and costs
absent evidence that the request is reasonable. (Id.
9:12-15). To determine whether the request is reasonable the
Court needs, “(1) contemporaneous billing records, (2)
counsel's hourly rate, and (3) evidence that this rate is
reasonable for an attorney of his or her skill and
experience.” (Id. 9:16-23). Accordingly, the
R&R recommends denying Plaintiffs request for fees
“unless Plaintiff provides sufficient
documentation” for the Court to conclude that the
request is reasonable. (Id. 10:3-5). Plaintiff did
not file the requested documentation.
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 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). Where a party fails to
object, however, the Court is not required to conduct
“any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the
subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has
recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no
objections have been filed. See, e.g., United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.
no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, June 27,
2019, has passed. (R&R 10:10-19).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation, (ECF No. 21), is ADOPTED in
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Renewed
Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 19), is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request that
Default Judgment be entered against Defendant, (Ren. Mot.
Default Judgment 10:9-14:14, ECF No. 19), is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for
a Permanent Injunction against Defendant's infringement
of its patents, (Ren. Mot. Default Judgment 14:15-16:26, ECF
No. 19), is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the Court's
Permanent Injunction, Defendant is enjoined from:
1) Mailing the QBLoader Pistol Magazine Loader &
Unloader, or other similarly infringing product
(collectively, “Infringing Products”), to the
United States or importing Infringing Products into the
2) Making, using, offering to sell, selling, or distributing
Infringing Products in the United States, either directly or
3) Assisting any other entities in making, using, ordering,
purchasing, selling, offering for sale, or distributing
Infringing Products in the United States or importing
Infringing Products into the United States;
4) Advertising, offering for sale, or selling Infringing
Products on Amazon.com, eBay.com, Walmart.com, Wish.com,
Alibaba.com, and other websites that are ...