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.

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LIMITED v. REDDY

United States District Court, N.D. California


November 3, 2005.

PENTALPHA MACAU COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LIMITED, Plaintiff,
v.
DAMODER REDDY, et al., Defendants. DAMODER REDDY, Counterclaimant, v. PENTALPHA OFFSHORE LIMITED, et al., Counterdefendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2005; ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2005; VACATING HEARING
Before the Court is counterclaimant Damoder Reddy's Objection to Report and Recommendation on Pentalpha's Motion for Sanctions Dated September 9, 2005. Having reviewed the objection, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 4, 2005, and rules as follows.

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record before the Magistrate Judge, see 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1), the Court hereby DENIES the objection. Contrary to Reddy's argument that he complied with the Court's order of June 24, 2005, he plainly did not, as he failed to set forth in his discovery responses, inter alia, a "detailed factual basis for contending that Pentalpha converted any specific item of Reddy's property," (see Stipulation and Order Re Further Discovery Responses, filed June 24, 2005, at 2:7-9), a "valuation of each element of damages for each specific item of allegedly converted property," (see id. at 2:10-11), "all persons who he alleges . . . defamed him, including each individual's name, address, and position held at . . . Pentalpha," (see id. at 2:13-15), and "each act by Pentalpha that he contends caused emotional distress," (see id. at 3:2-3). Further, as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Reddy's failure to comply with the Court's order was willful, i.e., it was not accidental or the result of an oversight. Lastly, a review of the record reflects no good cause for Reddy's failure to comply with the Court's order.

  Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation filed September 9, 2005.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051103

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



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.