Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blocklin v. Black Pepper Pho, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 3, 2014

CHELSEA BLOCKLIN, JALEN AQUINO, HUYEN TRAN DUONG, JACQUELINE DALLMAN, KHAI T RAN, and PHUONG-AHN CAI, Plaintiffs,
v.
BLACK PEPPER PHO, LLC, HUONG DANG, and CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Defendants

For Chelsea Blocklin, Jalen Aquino, Huyen Tran Duong, Jacqueline Dallman, Khai Tran, Phuong-Anh Cai, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs: Brandt Powers Milstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Milstein Law Office, Boulder, CO.

Black Pepper Pho, LLC, Defendant, Pro se, Thornton, CO.

Huong Dang, Defendant, Pro se, Thornton, CO.

Christopher John, Defendant, Pro se, Thornton, CO.

ORDER ADOPTING NOVEMBER 14, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING PARTIES' RENEWED JOINT MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

William J. Martí nez, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the November 14, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the " Recommendation") (ECF No. 34) that the Parties' Joint Motion for Court Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 32) be granted. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 34, at 9.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been received.

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note (" When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (" In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.").

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
(2) The Parties' Renewed Joint Motion for Court Approval of Settlement (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED;
(3) The Parties' Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 32-1) is APPROVED and is hereby made an ORDER of this Court; and
(4) In accordance with the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss this Action with Prejudice no later than seven days after the checks referenced in Section 1 of the Agreement clear their respective financial institution(s).

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.