Alizadeh v. Katebian

Full title: Laila Alizadeh, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Morteza Katebian, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 25, 2021

Civil Case No. 20-12372 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 25, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 20-12372

06-25-2021

Laila Alizadeh, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Morteza Katebian, et al., Defendants.

Sean F. Cox United States District Court Judge

ORDER ADOPTING JUNE 1 , 2021 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In an Order issued on January 13, 2021, this Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for all pretrial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 63).

In a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand on June 1, 2021, he recommends that:

1) The Katebian Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 79) be denied;

2) Plaintiffs' Freeze Motion (ECF No. 80) be granted to the extent that it requests permission to conduct expedited discovery with respect to the issues raised in the Freeze Motion but denied without prejudice as to Plaintiffs' request for an order freezing the assets and bank accounts in question;

3) The Katebian Defendants' Motion to Strike the Freeze Motion (ECF No. 88) be denied; and

4) Plaintiffs' "Emergency Motion for (1) Protective Order, (2) Sanctions Against Defendants Morteza Katebian, Payam Katebian and Ali Behrouz for Witness Intimidation, and (3) for Criminal Referral" (ECF No. 85) be denied.

(Id.).

The docket reflects that no party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation within the time permitted for doing so. As such, the Court ADOPTS the June 1, 2021 Report and Recommendation and ORDERS that:

1) The Katebian Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 79) is DENIED;

2) The Katebian Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Freeze Motion (ECF No. 88) is DENIED.

3) Plaintiffs' Freeze Motion (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' request for permission to conduct expedited discovery related to the issues raised in the Freeze Motion. As set forth in the R&R, Plaintiffs should, with Defendants' cooperation, promptly conduct the necessary discovery, which they expect to be able to do within 90 days. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs' request for an order freezing the assets and bank accounts in question. Plaintiffs may re-file their motion with the benefit of the additional evidence gleaned from the discovery process.

4) Plaintiffs' "Emergency Motion" (ECF No. 85) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Sean F. Cox

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge Dated: June 25, 2021