Summary
explaining that this basis for venue is "not applicable because this action may otherwise be brought in another district"
Summary of this case from Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. v. Interstate Mech.Opinion
08-CV-479-AC.
October 28, 2008
David R. Ambrose, Barton C. Bobbitt, James Ryan Kirchoff, Ambrose Law Group LLC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Robert B. Hopkins, Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP, Portland, OR.
J. Stephen Werts, Cable Huston Benedict Haagensen Lloyd, Portland, OR.
Philip S. Van Der Weele, K L Gates LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#41) on September 22, 2008, in which he recommended this Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#15) and GRANT Defendants' alternative Motion to Stay (#15). The matter is now before this Court 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, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#41). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#15) and GRANTS Defendants' alternative Motion to Stay (#15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.