Regional Local Union No. 846 et al v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc.

Filing 89

OPINION and ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 82 . Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm and Enforce Arbitration Award (Dkt. 78 ) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. 75 ) is DENIED. Signed on 1/26/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) Modified on 1/26/2015 to correct motion to confirm arbitration award docket number(peg).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NO. 846,
International Association of Bridge Structural,
Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers,
AFL-CIO, by and through LUIS QUINTANA,
in his representative capacity as Business
Manager; REGIONAL DISTRICT
COUNCIL WELFARE PLAN AND
TRUST, f/k/a LOCAL 846 REBAR
WELFARE TRUST, by and through its Board
of Trustees; REGIONAL DISTRICT
COUNCIL RETIREMENT PLAN AND
TRUST, f/k/a REBAR RETIREMENT PLAN
AND TRUST, by and through its Board of
Trustees; and REGIONAL DISTRICT
COUNCIL TRAINING TRUST, f/k/a
LOCAL 846 TRAINING TRUST, by and
through its Board of Trustees; and
REGIONAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
VACATION TRUST FUND, f/k/a LOCAL
846 VACATION TRUST, by and through its
Board of Trustees,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GULF COAST REBAR, INC., a Florida
Corporation, f/k/a GULF COAST PLACERS,
INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendant.

PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case No. 3:11-cv-658-AC
OPINION AND ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in
this case on November 4, 2014. Dkt. 82. Judge Acosta recommended that (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Confirm and Enforce Arbitration Award (Dkt. 78) be granted; and (2) Defendant’s Motion to
Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. 75) be denied.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate’s findings and recommendations to which neither party
has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require
a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); United States
v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the court must
review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not
otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not
preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other
standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate’s
recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
Defendant timely filed an objection (Dkt. 87) to which Plaintiffs responded (Dkt. 88).

PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant objects to portions of the Findings and Recommendation respecting the standard of
review that should apply to the Arbitrator’s decision. Defendant further objects to the finding
that a plausible construction of the arbitration award was to have “considered Gulf Coast’s request
for arbitration to be a concession that arbitration is appropriate under the Agreement and,
accordingly, a waiver of any defense to arbitrability.”1

The Court has reviewed de novo Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation, as well
as Defendant’s objections, Plaintiffs’ response, and the underlying briefing in this case. The
Court agrees with Judge Acosta’s reasoning and adopts the Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 82. Plaintiffs’
Motion to Confirm and Enforce Arbitration Award (Dkt. 78) is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion
to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. 75) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 26th day of January, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

1

In a footnote, Defendant further argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the claim, warranting dismissal. Judge Acosta rejected this argument, and the court agrees
with his well-reasoned conclusion.
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER