Youngevity Int'l Corp. v. Smith
Youngevity Int'l Corp. v. Smith
2019 WL 11274846 (S.D. Cal. 2019)
May 28, 2019
Moskowitz, Barry T., United States District Judge
Summary
The Court denied a motion for sanctions filed by Defendants against Plaintiffs for failure to meet and confer before filing the motion. The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motions to strike or stay and for oral argument, and overruled their objection to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The Court found that the motion to strike was moot and adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation as the decision of the Court.
Additional Decisions
YOUNGEVITY INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Todd SMITH, et al., Defendants
v.
Todd SMITH, et al., Defendants
Case No.: 16-cv-704-BTM-JLB
United States District Court, S.D. California
Signed May 28, 2019
Counsel
Bethany R. Kennedy, Pro Hac Vice, Eric Jordan Awerbuch, Pro Hac Vice, Peter A. Arhangelsky, Pro Hac Vice, Emord & Associates PC, Gilbert, AZ, James Stephen McAuliffe, III, Pro Hac Vice, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Rockville, MD, Jonathan W. Emord, Pro Hac Vice, Emord and Associates, Clifton, VA, Joshua Scott Furman, Pro Hac Vice, Emord and Associates PC, Chandler, AZ, Laura Golden Liff, Pro Hac Vice, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Tysons Corner, VA, for Plaintiff Youngevity International, Corp.Bethany R. Kennedy, Pro Hac Vice, Eric Jordan Awerbuch, Peter A. Arhangelsky, Pro Hac Vice, Emord & Associates PC, Gilbert, AZ, James Stephen McAuliffe, III, Pro Hac Vice, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Rockville, MD, for Plaintiff ND Joel D. Wallach, DVM.
Cynthia Love, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan O. Hafen, Jonathan R. Schofield, Michael S. Anderson, Pro Hac Vice, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT, Darwin Poyfair, Pro Hac Vice, Reese Poyfair Richards, PLLC, Cottonwood Heights, UT, Kyle M. Van Dyke, Hurst & Hurst, San Diego, CA, for Defendants Todd Smith, William Andreoli, Total Nutrition Team, Blake Graham, Andre Vaughn, Dave Pitcock, Patti Gardner, Brytt Cloward.
Cynthia Love, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan O. Hafen, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan R. Schofield, Pro Hac Vice, Michael S. Anderson, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen C. Mouritsen, Pro Hac Vice, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT, Darwin Poyfair, Pro Hac Vice, Reese Poyfair Richards, PLLC, Cottonwood Heights, UT, Kyle M. Van Dyke, Hurst & Hurst, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Wakaya Perfection.
Jonathan R. Schofield, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT, Kyle M. Van Dyke, Hurst & Hurst, San Diego, CA, for Defendant Does 1-10.
Cynthia Love, Jonathan O. Hafen, Jonathan R. Schofield, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants Barb Pitcock, Mike Randolph, Mike Casperson.
Moskowitz, Barry T., United States District Judge
ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, (2) DENYING MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS, TO STRIKE OR STAY, AND FOR ORAL ARGUMENT (3) OVERRULING OBJECTION [ECF Nos. 552, 554, 586, 625. 631]
*1 Before the Court is a motion for sanctions filed by Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs (collectively, “Wakaya”). (ECF No. 552.) Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants (collectively, “Youngevity”) filed a motion to strike or stay Wakaya's motion, (ECF No. 554), and motion for oral argument, (ECF No. 586). The motions were referred to the Magistrate Judge to hear the motions and issue a report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Burkhardt filed a Report and Recommendation that the motions be denied on April 9, 2019. (ECF No. 625.) Youngevity filed an objection contending that the motion for sanctions should have been stricken. (ECF No. 631.)
The Court has considered the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the objection, and the relevant record and concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the applicable law to the properly found facts. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
Youngevity's objection is OVERRULED. The Court need not decide whether Local Civil Rule 26.1a requires the parties to meet and confer before filing a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, because the Court has discretion to rule on a motion even in the absence of a meet and confer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“The[ ] [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”); CivLR 1.1(d) (“In any case for the convenience of the parties in interest, or in the interest of justice, a judge may waive the applicability of these rules.”). Moreover, the motion to strike is moot since the motion for sanctions is denied on the merits. The Court also holds that the present motions are appropriate for resolution without oral argument.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 625) as the decision of the Court. For the reasons set forth therein, Wakaya's motion for sanctions (ECF No. 552) is DENIED.
Youngevity's motions to strike or stay (ECF No. 554) and for oral argument (ECF No. 586) are DENIED.
Youngevity's objection (ECF No. 631) is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.