Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08089/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08089-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Days Inns Worldwide Incorporated,

Petitioner,

vs.

Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 11-8089-PCT-DKD

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc.’s (“DIW”) Motion for Entry

of Final Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award (Doc. 11). On September 19, 2011, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendations with this Court (Doc. 13). To date, no

objections have been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, 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 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)).

Case 3:11-cv-08089-DKD Document 14 Filed 10/14/11 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 -

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendations, 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 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and no

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 13).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc.’s

Motion for Entry of Order and Final Judgment to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Doc. 11.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court confirms the Arbitration Award entered

by the American Arbitration Association arbitrator on February 8, 2011 in favor of Petitioner

Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. and against Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court enters Final Judgment in favor of

Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. and against Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC in the total

amount of $103,180.66.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2011.

Case 3:11-cv-08089-DKD Document 14 Filed 10/14/11 Page 2 of 2