Filed: Oct. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 24), which recommends that Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company-West, LLC's and Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles's ("Enterprise Defendants'") Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demands for Punitive Damages and Attorney's Fees, (ECF No. 13), be granted with respect to Paragraph 54 in the Complaint. It further
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 24), which recommends that Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company-West, LLC's and Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles's ("Enterprise Defendants'") Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demands for Punitive Damages and Attorney's Fees, (ECF No. 13), be granted with respect to Paragraph 54 in the Complaint. It further r..
More
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, (ECF No. 24), which recommends that Defendant Enterprise Leasing Company-West, LLC's and Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles's ("Enterprise Defendants'") Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demands for Punitive Damages and Attorney's Fees, (ECF No. 13), be granted with respect to Paragraph 54 in the Complaint. It further recommends that Enterprise Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demands for Punitive Damages and Attorney's Fees, (ECF No. 13), be denied as to the remainder of the Complaint.
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 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. 2003).
Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 24), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Enterprise Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demands for Punitive Damages and Attorney's Fees, (ECF No. 13), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. In light of this Order, Paragraph 54 in the Complaint, (Ex. A to Pet. for Removal, ECF No. 1), is STRICKEN.
