Opinion
Case No.: 2:16-cv-02938-JAD-NJK
04-21-2017
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Plaintiff v. Operture, Inc., Defendant
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10], Ordering Default be Entered Against Defendant, and Ordering Supplemental Briefing
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., brings three claims for relief against Operture, Inc.: (1) quiet title and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, NRS 30.010 et seq., and NRS 40.010; (2) preliminary injunction; and (3) unjust enrichment. Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe recommends that default judgment be entered against Operture for failing to retain counsel. The Report and Recommendation was entered March 24, 2017. Objections were due April 7, 2017. "[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation unless objections are filed." 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). Operture has filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
ECF No. 1 at 9-12. Technically, "preliminary injunction" is not a claim for relief, it's a remedy.
Accordingly, and with good cause appearing,
It is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter default in favor of U.S. Bank Trust, and against Operture.
U.S. Bank Trust is ORDERED to file a proposed order and judgment accompanied by a supplemental memorandum of points and authorities discussing the scope of relief legally available and addressing the seven factors outlined by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool. If U.S. Bank Trust seeks fees and costs, U.S. Bank Trust is further ORDERED to submit a separate motion for fees and costs that complies with Local Rule 54-14. U.S. Bank Trust is ORDERED to submit all filings within 10 days of the date of this order.
The seven factors outlined in Eitel include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) . --------
DATED April 21, 2017.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge