US Bank National Association v. Hanson et al

Filing 87

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - granting 56 Motion for Order of Sale filed by Lee Katz, denying 65 Motion to prohibit Receiver from selling or transferring non-receivership property, filed by Coeur d' Alene Fiber Fuels, Inc., 78 Report and Recommendations,,,. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO

_________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ERIC HANSON, an individual; FRED
)
HANSON, an individual; and Coeur d’Alene
)
Fiber Fuels, Inc. INLAND NORTHWEST BANK )
)
Defendants.
)
)
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a
national banking association, as Trustee under
Indenture of Trust between Industrial Development
Corporation of Kootenai County and U.S. Bank
National Association, as Trustee, dated as of
December 1, 2006, relating to $6,365,000
Industrial Development Corporation of Kootenai
County Revenue Bonds (AMT), 2006
(Coeur d’Alene Fiber Fuels, Inc. Project) and
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a
national banking association, as Trustee under
Indenture of Trust between Washington Economic
Development Finance Authority and U.S. Bank
National Association, as Trustee, dated as of
September 1, 2007 relating to Washington
Economic Development Finance Authority
Economic Development Revenue Bonds
(Coeur d’Alene Fiber Fuels, Inc. Project) Series
2007G (AMT) - $8,710,000 and
Series 2007H (Taxable) - $950,000

Case No. 2:10-cv-00498-EJL

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

On June23, 2011, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale
issued her Report, and Recommendation in this matter. Dkt. No. 78. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties had fourteen days in which to file written
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant Coeur d’Alene Fiber
1

Fuels, Inc. filed an objection on June 30, 2011, Dkt. No. 83. Said objection was
withdrawn on July 13, 2011, Dkt. No. 85. The Court’s staff attorney confirmed
with counsel for the parties that all the parties agree this Court should adopt the
Report and Recommendation entered by Judge Dale.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Moreover, this Court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. In United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district
judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and
recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise. As
the Peretz Court instructed, “to the extent de novo review is required
to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless
requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939 (internal citation
omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district
judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251
(“Absent an objection or request for review by the defendant, the
district court was not required to engage in any more formal review
of the plea proceeding.”); see also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39
(clarifying that de novo review not required for Article III purposes
unless requested by the parties) . . . .
See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).
Since no objections remain, the Court need not conduct a de novo
determination of the Report and Recommendation. The Court did, however,
review the Report and Recommendation and the record in this matter and finds the

2

Report and Recommendation to be well-founded in the law based on the facts of
this particular case.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 78) shall be INCORPORATED by reference and
ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. The Receiver’s Motion for an Order Approving the Sale of Certain
Assets (Dkt. No. 56) is GRANTED with respect to all Receivership assets,
including the RUF Brick Machine, Model #400, but excluding all other assets
identified in the Declaration of Eric Hanson (Dkt. No. 66.)
2. Defendant Coeur d’Alene Fiber Fuels’ Emergency Motion for Entry of
Order Prohibiting Receiver From Selling or Transferring Non-Receivership
Property
(Dkt. No. 65) is DENIED.
3. The Court will enter the proposed order approving the sale of certain
assets submitted by the Receiver which was attached to the Report and
Recommendation.
DATED: July 14, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

3