Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARTHA WONG and DANIEL A. BERNATH, Pro Se Plaintiffs, v. RANDY ROSENBLATT, and indi

ANNA J. BROWN

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


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Wong v. Rosenblatt
(Apr 11, 2014)