Summary
holding arbitration clause did not express contemplate future assignees or arbitration of FDCPA claims against a future third-party
Summary of this case from Hopkins v. Genesis FS Card Servs.Opinion
No. 03:14-cv-01610-ST
04-16-2015
ANDREA JENKINS-BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS SERVICING, LLC, and THOMAS L. POTTER, IV, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER :
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#23) on March 5, 2015, in which she recommends that this Court deny Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [23]. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to compel arbitration [13] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16 day of April, 2015.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge