Swenson v. Alliance Moving and Storage LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 21-cv-01968-CMA-STV TAYLOR SWENSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, KYLE BUNTING, JAMIE BUNTING, THOMAS PEVEAR CHURCHILL, JORDAN CHURCHILL, MILLARD MCQUAID, CAITLAND MCQUAID, BEN WARREN, and MEGHAN WARREN, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE MOVING AND STORAGE LLC, BID COMPANY LLC, d/b/a Real Mover, POLARIS MOVING SYSTEMS INC., d/b/a Roadrunner Moving, UNLIMITED MOVING AND STORAGE LLC, and ALL TIME MOVING INC., d/b/a Rapid Van Lines, Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the April 26, 2022, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 45), wherein Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak granted in part and denied in part Defendant Alliance Moving & Storage, LLC’s (“Alliance”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 18) and granted in part and denied in part Defendant B.I.D. Company LLC d/b/a Real Movers’ (“Real Movers”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 19) (collectively the “Motions”).

Judge Varholak recommends dismissing Plaintiffs’ Colorado Consumer Protection Act Claims against Alliance and Real Movers, and he also recommends denying the remainder of the Motions. The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate [judge] reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”)). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 45 at n.1.) The parties have not filed any objection, and the time to do so has now expired.

Having reviewed the Recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and applicable legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: • The April 26, 2022, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 45) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court; e Defendant Alliance Moving and Storage LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim against Alliance Moving and Storage LLC is DISMISSED. The remainder of the motion is denied. e Defendant B.I.D. Company LLC d/b/a Real Movers’ motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim against B.1.D. Company LLC d/b/a Real Movers is DISMISSED. The remainder of the motion is denied.

DATED: May 12, 2022 BY THE COURT: CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge