Haines v. Oliver

Filing 34

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 31 ; Denying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 6 ); Granting Motion for Summary Judgment 8 . Ordered & Signed on 3/14/11 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (kf)

Haines v. Oliver

Doc. 34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE D STRICT OF OREGON
JANETTE HAINES,
Civ. No. 10 3027 CL Plaintiff,

v.
JENN FER OLIVER, De ndant.
ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Ma

strate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a ion, and the matter is now before

rt and s court. no 1 See 28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)

(1)

(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). this court reviews the

objections have been filed, inc es de novo.

1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983). I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that claim preclusion bars aintiff's claims for declaratory re1i f; removal of notice

of pendency of action; abuse of process; interference with

1

ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

economic distress. 1

age, and intentional infliction of emotional I also agree that de is entitled to summary use of civil

judgment on plaintiff's claim for

proceedings because defendant had probable cause to file her counterclaim litigation. Magistrate constructive trust in the underlying state court Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Clarke.
CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's adopted.

and Re

ion (#31) is

Defendant's motion for summary judgment (#8) is granted,

and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment (#6) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this day of March, 2011.

U##tlli~
OWEN M. PANNER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

n

.

,/7)

The complaint confusingly includes two separate cla
that are each li as the fifth claim. Compl. 8, 9. The
and Recommendation specifically sses the first "fifth" claim, which is for interference with economic advantage. The same reasoning -to the other "fi h" claim, whi is for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
1

2 - ORDER