Otoski et al v. Avidyne Corporation et al

Filing 114

ORDER: Adopting Findings and Recommendation 90 . Cessna's Motion for Summary Judgment 50 is granted because Otoski's claims against it are precluded as a matter of law by the bankruptcy court's November 28, 2007 Order. Otoski's Motion for Leave to conduct destructive examination 65 is granted becasue Cessna is no longer a party to the action, rendering its objections moot. Signed on 11/15/10 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (ljl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EMILY C. OTOSKI, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard E. Otoski, for the benefit of EMILY C. OTOSKI, surviving wife of the deceased and NATHAN OTOSKI, MATTHEW OTOSKI, AND SHANNON LEE, surviving children of the deceased, Civil No. 09-3041-PK Plaintiff, v. AVIDYNE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, a Kansas corporation, Defendants. ORDER

MARSH, Judge. Magistrate Judge Paul Papak filed his Findings and Recommendation (#90) before me. 72(b). on October 6, 2010. The matter is now

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ P. This relieves me

No objections have been timely filed.

of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. See §636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1996). novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and 1 - ORDER Having reviewed the legal principles de

Recommendation #90.

Cessna's motion (#50) for summary judgment

is GRANTED because Otoski's claims against it are precluded as a matter of law by the bankruptcy court's November 28, 2007 Order. Otoski's motion (#65) for leave to conduct destructive examination is GRANTED because Cessna is no longer a party to the action, rendering its objections moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 15 day of November, 2010.

/s/ Malcolm F. Marsh Malcolm F. Marsh United States District Judge

2 - ORDER