Filed: Jul. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2017
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , Chief District Judge . On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Amended Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [242], recommending GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP, Eisneramper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, and Tonkon Torp LLP [74] and the individual Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Eisneramper LLP [78], Tonkon Torp LLP [80], Sidley Austin LLP [81], Deloitte & To
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL W. MOSMAN , Chief District Judge . On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Amended Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [242], recommending GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP, Eisneramper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, and Tonkon Torp LLP [74] and the individual Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Eisneramper LLP [78], Tonkon Torp LLP [80], Sidley Austin LLP [81], Deloitte & Tou..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.
On April 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Amended Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [242], recommending GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Deloitte & Touche LLP, Eisneramper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, and Tonkon Torp LLP [74] and the individual Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Eisneramper LLP [78], Tonkon Torp LLP [80], Sidley Austin LLP [81], Deloitte & Touche LLP [85], Integrity Bank & Trust [95], andTD Ameritrade, Inc. [113].
Defendants Eisneramper LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Deloitte & Touche LLP, and Integrity Bank & Trust filed objections, and Plaintiffs responded to the objections. Defendants Sidley Austin LLP and Tonkon Torp LLP did not file objections.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations and ADOPT the Amended Findings and Recommendation [242] as my own opinion. The Joint Motion to Dismiss and individual Motions to Dismiss [74, 78, 80, 81, 85, 95, and 113] are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This matter is referred back to Judge Acosta for the issuance of an appropriate scheduling order, including a deadline for filing of Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
