From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mehta v. Nutribullet, LLC

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Jan 6, 2022
2:20-cv-01550-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-01550-APG-DJA

01-06-2022

JAGDISH MEHTA, Plaintiff v. NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., et al., Defendants


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NOS. 48, 54]

ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

On December 15, 2021, Magistrate Judge Albregts recommended that I grant the defendants' motion to strike with respect to paragraph 40 of the complaint but deny it in all other respects. ECF No. 54. No. one objected. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).

I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Albregts' report and recommendation (ECF No. 54) is accepted. The defendants' motion to strike (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED in part. The request for punitive damages in paragraph 40 in relation to the plaintiffs negligence claim is stricken from the complaint. The motion is denied in all other respects. 1


Summaries of

Mehta v. Nutribullet, LLC

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Jan 6, 2022
2:20-cv-01550-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2022)
Case details for

Mehta v. Nutribullet, LLC

Case Details

Full title:JAGDISH MEHTA, Plaintiff v. NUTRIBULLET, L.L.C., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Jan 6, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-01550-APG-DJA (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2022)