Giulio v. BV Centercal, LLC et al

Filing 102

ORDER: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations ( 99 and 100 ). Accordingly, Defendants motions for summary judgment ( 29 , 33 and 40 ) are GRANTED. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 9/6/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

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

JEFFREY GIULIO, individually; and
JEFFREY GIULIO, a conservator of
the estate of T.G., a minor child,
Plaintiff,
v.
BV CENTERCAL, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; CENTERCAL ASSOCIATES,
LLC, a Delaware corporation; CENTERCAL
PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware corporation;
IPC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
an Illinois corporation, CITY OF TUALATIN,
a municipal corporation; and BRAD KING, an
individual,
Defendants.

Susan K. Lain
HOHBACH LAW FIRM, LLC
4000 Kruse Way Place
Building 2
Suite 340
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Attorney for Plaintiff
1 - ORDER

No. CV. 09-481-AC
ORDER

Wm Kelly Olson
MITCHELL LANG & SMITH
2000 One Main Place
101 SW Main Street
Portland, OR 97204-3230
Attorney for Defendant BV CenterCal, LLC
Steven A. Kraemer
Mark C. Sherman
HOFFMAN HART & WAGNER, LLP
1000 SW Broadway
20th Floor
Portland, OR 97205
Attorneys for Defendant CenterCal Properties, LLC
Lee S. Aronson
SCHULTE ANDERSON DOWNES ARONSON BITTNER, PC
811 SW Naito Parkway
Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204-3379
Attorney for Defendant IPC International Corporation
David C. Lewis
MILLER & WAGNER, LLP
2210 NW Flanders Street
Portland, OR 97210
Attorney for Defendants City of Tualatin, Oregon and Brad King

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #99) on
August 3, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the motions for summary judgment (doc.
#29 and #33) filed by CenterCal Properties, LLC and BV CenterCal, LLC, respectively. The
Magistrate Judge also issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #100) the same day, August

2 - ORDER

3, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the motion for summary judgments (doc. #40) filed
by IPC International Corporation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations were
timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d
1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's
report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find
no error.
CONCLUSION
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (doc. #99
and #100). Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (doc. #29, #33, and #40)
are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2011.

/s/ Marco A. Hernandez
Marco A. Hernandez
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER