ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 90

JAMES DONATO, District Judge.

Because of the unique procedural posture of this case, the Court previously referred two pending motions to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on a report and recommendation basis: plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counter-complaint (Dkt. No. 55), and Reliance Mediaworks, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficient process and for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 68). See Dkt. No. 80.

Now before the Court are Magistrate Judge Corley's respective reports on those motions. Dkt. Nos. 87, 90. No objections have been filed in response to either report, and the time to file objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Court has carefully reviewed both reports and finds them to be thorough and well-reasoned. The Court consequently adopts both reports in full.

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Corley's October 1, 2015 report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 87), plaintiff WRI's motion to dismiss defendant Big Cinemas' counter-complaint is granted as to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action without leave to amend; granted as to Count Six with leave to amend; and denied as to Count Seven. Big Cinemas may file a counter-complaint amending its allegations for Count Six (and removing its First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action) by December 9, 2015. The counter-complaint may not be amended in any other way (e.g., adding new claims or parties) without prior leave of court.

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Corley's October 9, 2015 report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 90), defendant Reliance Mediaworks, Ltd.'s motion to dismiss WRI's first amended complaint for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.

The Court sets a further case management conference for January 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 11 of the San Francisco courthouse.

IT IS SO ORDERED.