Byers et al v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company et al

Filing 41

ORDER by Judge Anna J. Brown. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papaks Findings and Recommendation 39 and, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion 22 for Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice, DENIES as moot Defendants Motion 17 to Dismiss, DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motions 30 , 31 , and 32 for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RANDI BYERS, REBECCA FARRIS
individually, and as representatives
of a class of similarly situated
persons,
Plaintiffs,
v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign insurance company doing
business in the State of Oregon;
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
a foreign intra-insurance company doing
business in the State of Oregon; USAA
GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a foreign
insurance company doing business
in the State of Oregon; USAA COUNTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
insurance company doing business in
the State of Oregon; GARRISON PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
foreign insurance company doing business
in the State of Oregon; and JOHN DOES I-XX,
Defendants.
1 - ORDER

3:12-CV-01125-PK
ORDER

THANE TIENSON
Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP
3500 Wells Fargo Center
1300 S.W. Fifth Ave., Suite 3500
Portland, OR 97201
503-224-4100
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
APHRODITE KOKOLIS
DAVID C. SCOTT
JAY WILLIAMS
MARCI A. EISENSTEIN
Schiff Hardin LLP
233 S. Wacker Dr.
Suite 6600
Chicago, Il 60606
312-258-5500
MATTHEW C. CASEY
STUART DUNCAN JONES
Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC
300 Pioneer Tower
888 S.W. Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
503-499-4478
Attorneys for Defendants
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings and
Recommendation (#39) on September 28, 2012, in which he
recommends the Court GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion (#22) for Voluntary
Dismissal without prejudice, DENY as moot Defendants’ Motion
(#17) to Dismiss, DENY as moot Motions (#30, #31, #32) for Leave
to Appear Pro Hac Vice, and DISMISS this case without prejudice.
This matter is before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
2 - ORDER

STANDARDS
Because no objection to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations (#39) was timely filed by any party, this Court
is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo.
See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.
2003)(en banc).

See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d

1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Court has reviewed the legal

principles de novo and does not find any error.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and
Recommendation (#39) and, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion
(#22) for Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice, DENIES as
moot Defendants’ Motion (#17) to Dismiss, DENIES as moot
Plaintiffs’ Motions (#30, #31, and #32) for Leave to Appear Pro
Hac Vice, and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of November, 2012.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER