Summary
recognizing that the Ninth Circuit has not yet resolved this question
Summary of this case from Sardinas v. United Airlines, Inc.Opinion
3:13-cv-02209-ST
04-11-2014
MARTHA WONG and DANIEL A. BERNATH, Pro Se Plaintiffs, v. RANDY ROSENBLATT, and individual doing business as DISABILITY NW LLC, DISABILITY LAW OFFICE NW, LLC, MICK ROSENBLATT, LIELA ROSENBLATT, BARNSLEY ENTERPRISE LLC, PAT GOODMAN, LEILA R. AND MILTON L. ROSENBLATT LIVING TRUST, ROBERT GREEN, MILTON L. GOODMAN, ONPOINTE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, and DANIEL MULTOPS, Defendants. PAT GOODMAN, DISABILITY LAW OFFICE NW, LLC, LIELA ROSENBLATT, LIELA R. AND MILTON L. ROSENBLATT LIVING TRUST, MICK ROSENBLATT, ROBERT GREEN, and RANDY ROSENBLATT, Counter-Claimants, v. MARTHA WONG and DANIEL A. BERNATH Counter-Defendants.
RICHARD W. TODD Todd & Shannon, LLP Attorney for Defendants Milton L. Goodman Disability Law Office NW, LLC, Barnsley Enterprise LLC, and Defendants and Counter-Claimants Randy Rosenblatt, Mick Rosenblatt, Liela Rosenblatt, Pat Goodman, Leila R. and Milton L. Rosenblatt Living Trust and Robert Green MELISSA E. BEYER Farleigh Wada Witt, PC Attorney for Defendant OnPointe Community Credit Union CHRISTOPHER E. HAWK CRAIG J. MARIAM Gordon & Rees LLP Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Multops WILLIAM A. DAVIS Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, PC Attorney for Counter- Defendants
ORDER
RICHARD W. TODD
Todd & Shannon, LLP
Attorney for Defendants
Milton L. Goodman Disability
Law Office NW, LLC, Barnsley
Enterprise LLC, and Defendants
and Counter-Claimants Randy
Rosenblatt, Mick Rosenblatt,
Liela Rosenblatt, Pat Goodman,
Leila R. and Milton L. Rosenblatt
Living Trust and Robert Green
MELISSA E. BEYER
Farleigh Wada Witt, PC
Attorney for Defendant
OnPointe Community Credit
Union
CHRISTOPHER E. HAWK
CRAIG J. MARIAM
Gordon & Rees LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Daniel Multops
WILLIAM A. DAVIS
Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, PC
Attorney for Counter
Defendants
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#112) on March 4, 2014, in which she recommends this Court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On April 7, 2014, this Court took under advisement Plaintiffs' Motion (#3) to Appoint Receiver and/or Motion for Preliminary Injunction and review of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (#112).
No objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. On March 17, 2014 before the deadline to file objections, however, Plaintiffs filed a Motion Motion (#126) for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (which the Court notes should be a reference to a Second Amended Complaint). The Magistrate Judge entered an Order (#138) taking Plaintiff's Motion (#126) for Leave under advisement on April 21, 2014.
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9 Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9 Cir. 2003) (en banc). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#112) and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (#98) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion (#3) to Appoint Receiver and/or for Preliminary Injunction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court's ruling herein is without prejudice to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion (#126) for Leave to Amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge