1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 NADER CHEETANY, et al., ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-01692-GMN-DJA 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER PETER M. BERGSTROM, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 16), 11 of United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts, which recommends granting in part and 12 denying in part Plaintiffs Nader Cheetany, Eva Garcia-Mendoza, Esad Morina, Martyn James 13 Ravenhill’s (“Plaintiffs’”) Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 15). 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made.

The Court may accept, reject, 18 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 19

(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 20 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 21 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (citing

(b)(1)). Indeed, 22 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 23 judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328

(9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 1 ECF No. 18) (setting a July 5, 2022, deadline for objections). The Court, thus, accepts and 2 adopts in full the R&R and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion. Consequently, 3 the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment as it pertains to Plaintiffs’: (1) 4 federal securities fraud claim; (2) state securities fraud claim; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation 5 claim; (4) deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud claim; and (5) conversion claim. The 6 Court, however, denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment as it relates to Plaintiffs’ unjust 7 enrichment claim. Additionally, insofar as Plaintiffs seek attorney’s fees and costs, the Court 8 denies such a request. 9 Further, Plaintiffs shall be awarded as follows, jointly and severally against Defendants 10 Peter M. Bergstrom, Destination Online, L.L.C., and OURID, Inc.: 11 (1) Compensatory damages: 12 a. To Cheetany: $80,000.00, plus judgment interest at $11.51 per day from 13 December 7, 2020, until satisfied; 14 b. To Garcia: $200,000.00, plus judgment interest at $28.77 per day from 15 December 7, 2020, until satisfied; 16 c. To Ravenhill: $1,000,000.00, plus judgment interest at $143.84 per day from 17 December 7, 2020, until satisfied; and 18 d. To Morina: $200,000.00, plus judgment interest at $28.77 per day from 19 December 7, 2020, until satisfied. 20 (2) Punitive damages: 21 a. To Cheetany: $250,000.00; 22 b. To Garcia: $250,000.00; 23 c. To Ravenhill: $250,000.00; and 24 d. To Morina: $250,000.00. 25 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), is 3 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment is 5 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this Order. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is instructed to close the case. 7 Dated this __6__ day of July, 2022. 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25