Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al

Filing 202

OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 188 as my own opinion. I GRANT defendant U.S. Bank's Motion for Sanctions 100 , Second Motion for Sanctions 109 , and Third Motion for Sanctions 155 . I agree that payment of attorney fees is the appropriate sanction against Ms. Kelly for violating the court's order. U.S. Bank shall submit its fee request and documentation to Judge Acosta for review. Signed on 7/16/2010 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)

Kelly et al v. U.S. Bank et al

Doc. 202

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

ROBERTA KELLY and D. LAWRENCE OLSTAD, No. CV 08-1421-AC Plaintiffs, OPINION & ORDER v. U.S. BANK; BISHOP, WHITE & MARSHALL, P.S., a Washington Professional Services Company; and KRISTA WHITE, Defendants.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Third-party Plaintiff, CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., an inactive Oregon corporation; CREDIT CARD RECEIVABLES FUND INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation dba UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS; ZB LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware PAGE 1 - OPINION & ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

limited partnership dba UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Third-party Defendants, MOSMAN, J., On June 25, 2010, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#188) in the above-captioned case recommending that I GRANT defendant U.S. Bank's Motion for Sanctions (#100), Second Motion for Sanctions (#109), and Third Motion for Sanctions (#155). He also recommends that I impose payment of attorney fees against Ms. Kelly as the appropriate sanction for violating a court order. Plaintiff filed objections (#191) to the F&R, defendant U.S. Bank responded (#197), and plaintiff further filed an Answer (#200) to U.S. Bank's response. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

PAGE 2 - OPINION & ORDER

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R (#188) as my own opinion. I GRANT defendant U.S. Bank's Motion for Sanctions (#100), Second Motion for Sanctions (#109), and Third Motion for Sanctions (#155). I agree that payment of attorney fees is the appropriate sanction against Ms. Kelly for violating the court's order. U.S. Bank shall submit its fee request and documentation to Judge Acosta for review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

16th

day of July, 2010.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court

PAGE 3 - OPINION & ORDER