Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01269/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01269-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract 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

UV2, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

EMC Telecom Corporation, 

Defendant,

AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-01269-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor UV2, LLC filed Applications for a Writ of Garnishment

against the following entities: Double D Holdings, LLC; Pink Bird Media, Inc.; CC Bill,

LLC; and WMM Holdings, LLC. The proceedings were referred to Magistrate Judge

Michelle H. Burns. On May 20, 2013, Magistrate Judge Burns issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the applications regarding Double D Holdings,

LLC and Pink Bird Media, Inc. be stayed pending the outcome of state-court proceedings.

UV2 filed objections, arguing a stay would be inappropriate. On May 21, 2013, Magistrate

Judge Burns issued two other R&Rs, recommending that judgment be entered against CC

Bill, LLC and WMM Holdings, LLC. No objections were filed to these latter R&Rs.

A district judge “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). Where any party has

Case 2:10-cv-01269-ROS Document 99 Filed 07/29/13 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 -

filed timely objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R, the district court’s review of the part

objected to is to be de novo. Id. But no review is needed if no objections are filed. Schmidt

v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this

Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are

made, but not otherwise.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

No objections were made to the R&Rs regarding CC Bill, LLC and WMM Holdings,

LLC. Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&Rs addressed to those entities in full. UV2 did

file objections to the R&R regarding Double D Holdings, LLC and Pink Bird Media, Inc.

But, having reviewed the matter de novo, the Court concludes a stay is appropriate for the

reasons outlined by the Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motions for Expedited Ruling (Doc. 97, 98) are GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Reports and Recommendations (Doc. 93 and 94)

are ADOPTED IN FULL. The objections to the answers (Doc. 67, 75) are SUSTAINED.

 Plaintiff shall submit a proposed form of judgment within thirty days of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 92) is

ADOPTED IN PART. The Applications for a Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 51, 52) are stayed

until the conclusion of the state court proceedings (Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa

County, UV2, LLC v. Digital Ventures, LLC, CV-2009-054788).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED UV2, LLC, Double D Holdings, LLC, and Pink Bird

Media, Inc. shall file a joint status report regarding the state case ninety days from the date

of this Order and every ninety days thereafter.

DATED this 29th day of July, 2013.

Case 2:10-cv-01269-ROS Document 99 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 2