Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01226/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01226-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

05cv1226

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC, LTD.,

a Bahamian International Business

Company; ZION ROOTSWEAR, INC., a

Florida Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KOKOB PRINTING, a California entity;

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1226-L(NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [doc.

#59] and DENYING DEFENDANT

WORKU’S REQUESTS FOR A

SEPARATE TRIAL AND TO JOIN

ADDITIONAL PARTIES [doc. #57]

 

Pro se defendant Tadele Worku filed a “Motion for Seperation [sic] of Parties, Motion for

Joining of Additional Parties and Request for Non-Binding Mini-Trial” on March 20, 2007. The

matter was referred to the magistrate judge assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c). United States Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes issued a Report

and Recommendation ("Report") on March 29, 2007 [doc. #59] which recommended that

defendant Worku’s requests be denied. The parties were directed to file any objections to the

Report by April 23, 2007. To date, neither party has filed objections nor sought additional time

in which to file objections.

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

Case 3:05-cv-01226-L-CAB Document 63 Filed 04/26/07 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 05cv1226

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.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 238 (2003).

Discussion

As discussed in the Report, defendant’s request to join additional parties fails under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because the entities and churches he proposes to add as

parties are neither necessary or indispensable for a just adjudication. Defendant’s request also

fails under the test for permissive joinder found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. The

Court concludes that the Report amply provides support for the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that defendant’s request be denied.

Defendant Worku also requests a separate hearing and “non-binding mini-trial” under

Local Civil Rule 16.1(f). As the magistrate judge correctly notes Local Civil Rule 16.1 does not

provide for a separate mini-trial but instead sets forth the procedure for a pre-trial conference. 

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(b) permits, in a limited circumstance, a separate

trial, defendant Worku has not demonstrated he falls within that circumstance. Similarly,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) allows for separate trials of claims or issues when

convenience requires or to avoid prejudice. Again, as discussed by the magistrate judge,

defendant Worku has not demonstrated why his claims should be tried separately from the other

defendants.

Because the parties have not objected to the Report and Recommendation, the Court need

not review the magistrate judge’s finding de novo. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the

Report and Recommendation and finds the magistrate judge has presented a well-reasoned

discussion of the issues presented by the parties. 

. . .

. . .

. . .

Case 3:05-cv-01226-L-CAB Document 63 Filed 04/26/07 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 05cv1226

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying defendant Worku’s request to join additional

parties and for a separate trial [doc. #57].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01226-L-CAB Document 63 Filed 04/26/07 Page 3 of 3