Siltronic Corporation v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau et al

Filing 306

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation 300 and, therefore,: 1. GRANTS Defendant's Motions [#262], [#269] to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and, accordingly, STRIKES Plaintiff&# 039;s First Amended Complaint [#259]. 2. GRANTS in part Plaintiff's Second Motion [#273] for Leave to File First Amended Complaint to allow Plaintiff to amend its Complaint only as to the DEQ's UAO of August 16, 2016, and DENIES the remaind er of Plaintiff's Second Motion. 3. Plaintiff has leave to file a Second Amended Complaint which complies with this Order no later than March 6, 2017. This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/23/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SILTRONIC CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,

3:11-cv-01493-YY
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
OF WAUSAU, a Wisconsin
corporation, and GRANITE
STATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
a Pennsylvania corporation,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) (#300) on January 19, 2017, in which she
recommends the Court grant the Motions (#262, #269) to Strike
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Employers
Insurance Company of Wausau and Defendant Granite State Insurance
Company and grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Siltronic
Corporation’s Second Motion (#273) for Leave to File First
1 - ORDER

Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the F&R.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination
of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report.
§ 636(b)(1).

28 U.S.C.

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action against its
insurance carriers for declaratory judgment and breach of
contract to determine and to allocate financial responsibility
pursuant to the insurance policies issued by the carriers for
environmental clean-up claims arising out of the Portland Harbor
Superfund Site.
On December 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion (#205) for
Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2016,

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart1 issued an Opinion and Order
(#239) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion as
1

Although this case was originally assigned to Magistrate
Judge Stewart who handled the matter with full consent of the
parties, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge You when
Magistrate Judge Stewart retired. Subsequently, the parties
withdrew their consent.
2 - ORDER

follows:
Siltronic’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (docket #205) is GRANTED in part as to
deletion of the claims against the two dismissed
defendants and correction of minor, typographical
errors and otherwise is DENIED. Because the allowed
amendments are minor, this court sees no need for
Siltronic to file a First Amended Complaint. However,
if Siltronic chooses to file a First Amended Complaint
complying with this Order, it must do so by April 14,
2016.
Order (#239) at 9.
On July 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge You held a telephone
status conference with the parties.

As indicated in the F&R,

Magistrate Judge You noted Plaintiff had not yet filed its first
amended complaint as permitted by Magistrate Judge Stewart.
Magistrate Judge You gave Plaintiff a final opportunity to do so
by August 12, 2016.

See Docket #253.

On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint (#259).
On August 25, 2016, Wausau filed a Motion (#262) to Strike
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On September 2, 2016,

Granite also filed a Motion (#269) to Strike Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint.

Defendants move to strike Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint on the grounds that it contains allegations for
which Siltronic did not seek leave to amend as well as
allegations that Magistrate Judge Stewart specifically denied
Plaintiff leave to include in its First Amended Complaint.
On September 12, 2016, Plaintiff then filed a Second Motion
3 - ORDER

(#273) for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.

DISCUSSION
As noted, the Magistrate Judge recommends this Court grant
Defendants’ Motions to Strike on the ground that Plaintiff
misunderstood the Court’s Order allowing the filing of an amended
complaint as demonstrated by the fact that Plaintiff went beyond
Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Order without first seeking leave of
Court.

Plaintiff does not object to this part of the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge, however, also recommends this Court
grant Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Amend only as to Plaintiff's
proposed amendments based on the Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO) issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) on August 16, 2016, for clean-up of additional hazardous
substances and contaminants from an adjacent property.

The

Magistrate Judge otherwise recommends this Court deny Plaintiff’s
proposed amendments as futile and/or precluded by Magistrate
Judge Stewart’s Order.

Plaintiff objects to this portion of the

F&R.
This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s Objections
and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the F&R.

The

Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de
novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's

4 - ORDER

Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and
Recommendation (#300) and, therefore:
1.

GRANTS Defendants’ Motions (#262, #269) to Strike

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and, accordingly, STRIKES
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (#259).
2.

GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s Second Motion (#273) for

Leave to File First Amended Complaint to allow Plaintiff to amend
its Complaint only as to the DEQ’s UAO of August 16, 2016, and
DENIES the remainder of Plaintiff’s Second Motion.
3.

Plaintiff has leave to file a Second Amended Complaint

which complies with this Order no later than March 6, 2017.
matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2017.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER

This