Filed: Sep. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIONS JOHN A. HOUSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Daniel Doria's ("Defendant" or "Doria") Motion for Contempt Sanctions requesting dismissal sanctions against SolarCity Corporation ("Plaintiff"). [Doc. No. 113]. The Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a report and recommendation ("report") to this Court, recommending Defendant's
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIONS JOHN A. HOUSTON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Daniel Doria's ("Defendant" or "Doria") Motion for Contempt Sanctions requesting dismissal sanctions against SolarCity Corporation ("Plaintiff"). [Doc. No. 113]. The Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a report and recommendation ("report") to this Court, recommending Defendant's M..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIONS
JOHN A. HOUSTON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Daniel Doria's ("Defendant" or "Doria") Motion for Contempt Sanctions requesting dismissal sanctions against SolarCity Corporation ("Plaintiff"). [Doc. No. 113]. The Honorable Ruben B. Brooks, United States Magistrate Judge, submitted a report and recommendation ("report") to this Court, recommending Defendant's Motion for Contempt Sanctions be denied.1 See Doc. No. 156. The parties were required to file written objections to the magistrate judge's report no later than September 19, 2018.
The district court's role in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is set forth in Title 28, United States Code, § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." Id. It is well-settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge's report to which no specific objection is made, provided they are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985).
Judge Brooks analyzed the five factors a court must consider when determining whether dismissal is an appropriate sanction. See Doc. No. 156, pg. 6 (citing Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007)). Judge Brooks held that four of the five factors, including the third and fifth "determinative" factors weighed against levying a dismissal sanction against Plaintiff, and as such, recommended Defendant's motion for sanctions be denied. The Court received no objections to the magistrate judge's report, nor did either party request additional time in order to file objections. Accordingly, this Court may adopt the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions presented in the report as long as they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 153. This Court's careful de novo review of the record reflects the magistrate judge presented a cogent analysis and, thus, finds the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the report and recommendation are ADOPTED in their entirety;
2. Defendant's Motion for Contempt Sanctions [Doc. No. 113] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
