Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00286/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00286-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cuprite Mine Partners, LLC, an Arizona limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

John H. Anderson, a married man acting in is

sole and separate capacity, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-286-TUC-DCB

ORDER

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman on July 16, 2012,

pursuant to Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local

Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1(a). On October 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bowman issued a

Report and Recommendation (R&R). She recommends that the Court deny five Motions to

Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which have been urged pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6). The Magistrate Judge found the Amended Complaint states a claim for partition

under A.R.S. § 12-1211. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as the

findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and denies the Motions to Dismiss the

Amended Complaint.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R by a Magistrate Judge are set

forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The

district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Where the parties object to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo

Case 4:12-cv-00286-DCB-LAB Document 88 Filed 12/03/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

This Court's ruling is a de novo determination as to those portions of the R&R to which

there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13

(9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en

banc). To the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been

waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not

filed within fourteen days of service of the R&R), see also McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d

1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on

appeal); Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States

Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court

need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept

the recommendation)).

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), they had 14 days to file written objections. See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (party

objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written

objections). The Court has considered the objections filed by the Defendants, and the

parties’ briefs considered by the Magistrate Judge in deciding the motions to dismiss.

OBJECTIONS

The objections filed by Defendants John, Margaret Jane, and Stacey Elizabeth Anderson

were not argued to the Magistrate Judge and, therefore, not considered here. Defendant

Todd’s objection asserts he seeks sound business practices be followed, rather than have a

distressed sale forced by the partition action. Defendant Haakon’s objection asserts that no

one has ever heard of joinder in connection with a partition action and each of his three

properties must be considered independently.

As explained in the R&R, the Plaintiff, Cuprite Mine Partners, owns a 5/6 fractional

interest in each of sixteen mining claims. The remaining 1/6 fractional interest was owned

Case 4:12-cv-00286-DCB-LAB Document 88 Filed 12/03/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

by Defendant John H. Anderson at the time the Plaintiff filed the Complaint seeking

partition by sale of the 16 mining claims. Thereafter, Defendant John H. Anderson,

conveyed his 1/6 interest in twelve of the sixteen claims to his four children, giving three

each to his children and retaining four for himself. On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an

Amended Complaint adding the children as Defendants. In turn, the Defendants filed the

motions to dismiss asserting they may not be joined in this action and that the Plaintiffs must

sue each of them separately and individually. 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that joinder of these Defendants is required

and, therefore, proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1), and permissive joinder is also proper

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The Court has found no case law to support the Defendants’

assertion that the federal joinder statutes do not or should not apply in this partition case. 

For all the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court denies the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

this action for improper joinder.

CONCLUSION

After de novo review of the issues raised in Defendant's objections, this Court agrees

with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the Magistrate Judge in her R&R

for determining the pending Motions to Dismiss. The Court adopts it, and for the reasons

stated in the R&R, the Court denies Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that after a full and independent review of the record, in respect to

the objections, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 65) is accepted

and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 25, 27, 44,

47 and 60) are DENIED.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 4:12-cv-00286-DCB-LAB Document 88 Filed 12/03/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter remains referred to Magistrate Judge 

Leslie A. Bowman for all pretrial proceedings and Report and Recommendation in

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv. 72.1.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2012.

Case 4:12-cv-00286-DCB-LAB Document 88 Filed 12/03/12 Page 4 of 4