Hood Custom Homes, LLC v. Illinois National Insurance Company

Filing 23

ORDER: The Honorable John Jelderks, United States Magistrate Judge, filed an Opinion and Order on April 15,2009. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Opinion and Order. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's ruling concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v . Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The court will adopt the rulings from several other circuits that a motion to remand is a dispositive motion. William v. Beemil ler, 527 F. 3rd 259, 265 (2d Cir. 2008) (collecting cases from Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Jelderks. This court ADOPTS the Opinion and Order o f Magistrate Judge Jelderks dated April 15, 2009 in its entirety. I also disavow the dicta in my previous Opinion in Employers-Shopmens Local 516 Pension Trust v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 2005 WL 1653629 (D. Or. July 6 , 2005), after considering the reasoning in more recent cases. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice of Removal is granted. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (# 4 ) is denied. Signed on May 26th, 2009 by Judge Garr M. King. (eo)

r:IL~D M4Y 1 6 2009

IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E D I S T R I C T OF O R E G O N H O O D C U S T O M H O M E S , LLC, Plaintiff,
v.

ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Case No. 08-1506-1E ORDER

----------~)
Michael E. Famell Emily S. Miller Parsons Famcll & Grein, LLP 1030 SW Morrison Street Portland, O r e g o n 97205 Attorneys for P l a i n t i f f Donald 1. Verfurth Neal 1. Philip G o r d o n & R e e s , LLP 70 I Fifth Avenue, Suite 2130 Seattle, W a s h i n g t o n 98104 Attorneys for Defendant Page I - ORDER

KING, Judge: The Honorable John Jelderks, United States Magistrate Judge, filed an Opinion and Order on April 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 . P l a i n t i f f filed timely objections to the Opinion and Order. When either party objects to any portion o f a magistrate's ruling concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination o f that portion o f the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I); Fed. R. Civ. P.

neb); McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). The court will adopt the rulings from several other circuits that a motion to remand is a dispositive motion. William v. Beemiller, 527 F. 3rd 259, 265 (2d Cir. 2008) (collecting cases from Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits). This court has, therefore, given de novo review o f the rulings o f Magistrate Judge Jelderks. This court ADOPTS the Opinion and Order o f Magistrate Judge Jelderks dated April 15, 2009 in its entirety. I also disavow the dicta in my previous Opinion in Employers-Shopmens Local 516 Pension Trust v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company o f America, 2005 WL 1653629 (D. Or. July 6, 2005), after considering the reasoning in more recent cases. IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Notice o f Rem oval is granted. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Remand (#4) is denied. DATED this

~ day o f May, 2009.
GARRM.KING U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t J u d g e

Page 2 - O R D E R