Wong v. Rosenblatt

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