Opinion
No. 3:14-cv-00406-ST
12-16-2014
MAX ZWEIZIG, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY C. ROTE, a citizen of the state of Oregon; NORTHWEST DIRECT TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon for-profit corporation; NORTHWEST DIRECT MARKETING OF OREGON, INC., an Oregon for-profit corporation; NORTHWEST DIRECT MARKETING, INC., an Oregon for-profit corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant.
Linda L. Marshall PMB 408 3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P Lake Oswego OR 97035 Shawn M. Sornson SHAWN M. SORNSON PC 3415 Commercial Street S.E., Ste. 106 Salem, OR 97302 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey I. Hasson DAVENPORT & HASSON LLP 120707 N.E. Halsey Street Portland, OR 97230 Attorney for Defendants
ORDER Linda L. Marshall
PMB 408
3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P
Lake Oswego OR 97035
Shawn M. Sornson
SHAWN M. SORNSON PC
3415 Commercial Street S.E., Ste. 106
Salem, OR 97302
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jeffrey I. Hasson
DAVENPORT & HASSON LLP
120707 N.E. Halsey Street
Portland, OR 97230
Attorney for Defendants HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [35] on August 7 2014, in which she recommends that the Court should grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
I have carefully considered Defendants' objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation [35]. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [19] is denied with respect to Plaintiff's first and second claims for relief, and granted with respect to Plaintiff's third claim for relief, which is dismissed with leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16 day of Dec, 201_.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge