Sussman v. Soleil Management, LLC, 2:18-cv-02218-JAD-BNW. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191119b80
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2019
Summary: Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion for Leave to Amend [ECF Nos. 63, 100] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Defendants Club De Soleil Vacation Club and Tahiti Village Vacation Club move for leave to amend their answers so that they can assert counterclaims in this case. 1 Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler has thoughtfully considered the parties' briefing and recommends that I deny the motion. 2 The deadline to challenge that recommendation passed without objecti
Summary: Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion for Leave to Amend [ECF Nos. 63, 100] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . Defendants Club De Soleil Vacation Club and Tahiti Village Vacation Club move for leave to amend their answers so that they can assert counterclaims in this case. 1 Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler has thoughtfully considered the parties' briefing and recommends that I deny the motion. 2 The deadline to challenge that recommendation passed without objectio..
More
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Denying Motion for Leave to Amend
[ECF Nos. 63, 100]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
Defendants Club De Soleil Vacation Club and Tahiti Village Vacation Club move for leave to amend their answers so that they can assert counterclaims in this case.1 Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler has thoughtfully considered the parties' briefing and recommends that I deny the motion.2 The deadline to challenge that recommendation passed without objection or any request to extend the deadline to file one. "[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed."3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [ECF No. 100] is ADOPTED in full and the Motion for Leave to Amend Defendants' Answers [ECF No. 63] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the R&R.4
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 63.
2. ECF No. 100.
3. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
4. ECF No. 100.
Source: Leagle
