Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-01580-RM-STV
12-10-2021
IIT, INC., a Colorado corporation, and ABDI ABAS, Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, a dissolved Colorado limited liability company, IDT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, ROBERT DIETER, and COMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants.
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case involving breach of contract and various related claims and counterclaims is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak (ECF No. 114) to grant in part and deny in part Defendant IDT Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 88), the other Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 89), and Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 98), which pertains to the three counterclaims brought by Defendant Communications Distributors, LLC ("CDI"), and to deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 99), which pertains to certain affirmative defenses raised by Defendants.
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. The deadline for responding to the Recommendation has passed without a response from either party.
"In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
The fifty-five-page Recommendation thoroughly addresses the parties' pending motions, and the Court discerns no error on the face of the record. The lack of objection to the Recommendation suggests the parties prefer to move forward on the remaining claims rather than debate the merits of the claims the magistrate has determined to be subject to dismissal. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusions regarding the disposition of the claims and counterclaims in this case. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F.Supp.3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge's work in the absence of any objection).
Pursuant to the Recommendation, Plaintiffs' claims for civil conspiracy, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and unjust enrichment against Defendant DDT; their claims for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, promissory estoppel, violation of § 1981, and unjust enrichment against Defendant CDI; and their claims for promissory estoppel and violation of § 1981 against Defendant Dieter will proceed. Plaintiffs' other claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant CDI's counterclaims for breach of contract and defamation against Plaintiffs will proceed but not its counterclaim for tortious interference, which will also be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation, in its entirety, is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
The Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 114), GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the pending the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 88, 89, 98), as stated in the Recommendation, and DENIES the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 99).