Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01246/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01246-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Best Western International, Inc., an

Arizona non-profit corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC,

a Texas Limited Liability Company;

Gurmukh Kullar, a Nevada resident,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1246-PHX-SMM (LOA)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

 AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging breach of contract, federal

trademark infringement, unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended

(the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.), and related common law and Arizona statutory

causes of action. (Doc. 1.) This matter was assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge

Lawrence O. Anderson. (Doc. 6.) On January 18, 2012, Magistrate Judge Anderson filed

a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 30.) To date, no objections have been

filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter

Case 2:11-cv-01246-LOA Document 31 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch.

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law.

Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)).

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to

challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s

legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187

(9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendants thereto, the Court

hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson. (Doc. 30.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Best Western’s Motion for Default Judgment

against Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar is

GRANTED. (Doc. 17.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Best

Western and against Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant

Gurmukh Kullar in the amount of $145,350.20 ($134,984.05 + $10,366.15 for attorney’s

Case 2:11-cv-01246-LOA Document 31 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

fees, costs and non-taxable expenses). The Judgment shall earn interest at the agreed upon

rate of 1.5% per month (18% per annum) from the date of entry of judgment until paid in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Judgment in the amount of $145,350.20 is

binding on Defendant Richland Hotel Corporation GP, LLC, and Defendant Gurmukh Kullar

jointly and severally.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the remaining

claims alleged in the Complaint, Counts 4-10. All remaining pending motions are denied

as moot. 

DATED this 27th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01246-LOA Document 31 Filed 02/27/12 Page 3 of 3