Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02540/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02540-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINA CHAMPION-CAIN et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN MACDONALD et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION IN ITS 

ENTIRETY

[ECF No. 67]

On September 22, 2015, Defendants Luvsurf, Inc. and Brian MacDonald 

(collectively “Defendants”) filed an ex parte motion to amend the case management order 

and for leave to amend the counterclaim to substitute ROES. (ECF No. 67.) On September 

25, 2015, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion. (Opp’n, ECF No. 68.) On October 6, 

2015, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major denied Defendants’ motion to 

amend the case management order and issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) 

recommending that this Court deny Defendants’ motion for leave to amend the 

counterclaim. (Report, ECF No. 69.) Judge Major ordered any objections to be filed no 

later than October 13, 2015, and any replies filed no later than October 20, 2015. (Id. at 

9.) To date, no objections have been filed and neither party has sought an extension to do 

so.

//

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

14-cv-2540-GPC-BLM

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

The Court reviews de novo those portions of the Report to which objections are 

made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. However, “[t]he 

statute makes it clear that the district court judge must review the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); 

see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (concluding 

that where no objections were filed the district court had no obligation to review the 

magistrate judge’s report.”). “Neither the Constitution not the statute requires a district 

judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept 

as correct.” Id. “When no objections are filed, the de novo review is waived.” Marshall 

v. Astrue, No. 08-cv-1735, 2010 WL 841252, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (Lorenz, J.) 

(adopting report in its entirety without review because neither party filed objections to the 

report despite the opportunity to do so). 

In the instant case, the deadline for filing objections was October 13, 2015. To date, 

no objections have been filed and neither party has sought additional time. Consequently, 

the Court may adopt the Report on that basis alone. See Rayna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. 

The Court nonetheless conducted a de novo review of Defendants’ motion to amend the 

counterclaim (ECF No. 67), Plaintiffs’ opposition (ECF No. 68), and the Report (ECF No. 

69). The Court finds that Defendants have failed to show good cause for untimely seeking 

to amend the counterclaim to substitute ROES and allowing Defendants to do so would be 

prejudicial to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court hereby approves and ADOPTS the Report 

in its entirety (ECF No. 69) and DENIES Defendants motion for leave to amend the 

counterclaim. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 15, 2015

Case 3:14-cv-02540-GPC-BLM Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2