Lehman Brothers Holdings Incorporated v. Hamilton Mortgage Company, No. 2:2011cv01700 - Document 15 (D. Ariz. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edward C Voss 14 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company 12 is granted; th e Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company in the amount of $628,367.09; the Judgment shall earn interest at the annual federal rate from the date of entry of the Judgment until paid in full. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 5/8/12. (REW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., 10 11 Plaintiff, vs. 12 Hamilton Mortgage Co., 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-11-1700-PHX-SMM (ECV) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff s Complaint alleging breach of contract against 17 Defendant. (Doc. 1.) This matter was assigned and litigated before Magistrate Judge 18 Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 7.) On April 3, 2012, Magistrate Judge Voss filed a Report and 19 Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 14.) To date, no objections have been filed. 20 STANDARD OF REVIEW 21 When reviewing a Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation, this Court must 22 make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is 23 made, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 24 recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter 25 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. 26 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge s 27 recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge s 28 factual findings; the Court then may decide the dispositive motion on the applicable law. 1 Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States 2 Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196 (9th Cir. 1974)). 3 By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives its right to 4 challenge the Magistrate Judge s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate Judge s 5 legal conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 6 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to object to a Magistrate Judge s legal conclusion is a factor to be 7 weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal ); Martinez v. 8 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 9 (9th Cir. 1980)). 10 DISCUSSION 11 Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the 12 Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Defendants thereto, the Court 13 hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the reasons set forth, 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED approving, incorporating, and adopting the Report and 17 18 19 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss. (Doc. 14.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage Company is GRANTED. (Doc. 12.) 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter Judgment in favor 21 of Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and against Defendant Hamilton Mortgage 22 Company in the amount of $628,367.09. The Judgment shall earn interest at the annual 23 federal rate from the date of entry of this Judgment until paid in full. 24 DATED this 8th day of May, 2012. 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.
