Days Inns Worldwide Incorporated v. Hotel Capital Partners XV LLC, No. 3:2011cv08089 - Document 14 (D. Ariz. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 . GRANTING 11 Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc.'s Motion for Entry of Order and Final Judgment to Confirm Arbitration Award. That the Court confirms the Arbitration Award entered by the Ameri can Arbitration Association arbitrator on February 8, 2011 in favor of Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. and against Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC. 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. Signed by Judge Stephen M McNamee on 10/14/11. (DMT)

Download PDF
Days Inns Worldwide Incorporated v. Hotel Capital Partners XV LLC Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Days Inns Worldwide Incorporated, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC, 13 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV 11-8089-PCT-DKD ORDER 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc.’s (“DIW”) Motion for Entry 16 of Final Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award (Doc. 11). On September 19, 2011, the 17 Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendations with this Court (Doc. 13). To date, no 18 objections have been filed. 19 STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, this Court must 21 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” 22 and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 23 by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 24 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 25 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of 26 conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings; the Court then may 27 decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law. Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 28 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). Dockets.Justia.com 1 By failing to object to a Report and Recommendations, a party waives its right to 2 challenge the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge’s 3 legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 4 Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed 5 in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 6 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 7 1980)). DISCUSSION 8 9 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and no 10 Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts 11 the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations. CONCLUSION 12 13 For the reasons set forth, 14 IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendations of the 15 16 17 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.) 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court confirms the Arbitration Award entered 19 by the American Arbitration Association arbitrator on February 8, 2011 in favor of Petitioner 20 Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. and against Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court enters Final Judgment in favor of 22 Petitioner Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. and against Hotel Capital Partners XV, LLC in the total 23 amount of $103,180.66. 24 DATED this 14th day of October, 2011. 25 26 27 28 -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.