Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05914-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL

OFFSHORE LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAMODER REDDY, et al.,

Defendants __________________________________

DAMODER REDDY,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

PENTALPHA OFFSHORE LIMITED, et al.,

Counterdefendants

 /

No. C 03-5914 MMC

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2005;

ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DATED

SEPTEMBER 9, 2005; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is counterclaimant Damoder Reddy’s Objection to Report and

Recommendation on Pentalpha’s Motion for Sanctions Dated September 9, 2005. Having

reviewed the objection, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 4, 2005, and rules as follows.

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record

before the Magistrate Judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court hereby DENIES the

objection. Contrary to Reddy’s argument that he complied with the Court’s order of June

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 162 Filed 11/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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

24, 2005, he plainly did not, as he failed to set forth in his discovery responses, inter alia, a

“detailed factual basis for contending that Pentalpha converted any specific item of Reddy’s

property,” (see Stipulation and Order Re Further Discovery Responses, filed June 24,

2005, at 2:7-9), a “valuation of each element of damages for each specific item of allegedly

converted property,” (see id. at 2:10-11), “all persons who he alleges . . . defamed him,

including each individual’s name, address, and position held at . . . Pentalpha,” (see id. at

2:13-15), and “each act by Pentalpha that he contends caused emotional distress,” (see id.

at 3:2-3). Further, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Reddy’s failure to

comply with the Court’s order was willful, i.e., it was not accidental or the result of an

oversight. Lastly, a review of the record reflects no good cause for Reddy’s failure to

comply with the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation filed

September 9, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-05914-MMC Document 162 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2