Summary
dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's federal claim was outside the scope of the Lanham Act because plaintiff failed to allege a deceptive commercial statement
Summary of this case from Farm & Trade, Inc. v. Farmtrade, LLCOpinion
2:06-cv-0880-GEB-GGH-PS.
February 8, 2007
ORDER
On December 20, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orland v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1999). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).
The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 20, 2006, are ADOPTED;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss filed November 8, 2006, is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and
3. Defendants' motion to strike filed November 8, 2006, is DENIED as moot.