Wanke Cascade Distribution Ltd. v. Forbo Flooring, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS as modified Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 19 as stated in the attached Order. The Court refers to the Magistrate Judge the request of Plaintiff for leave to amend its Complaint to correct the deficiencies in its claims for promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation set out in the Findings and Recommendation. Signed on 12/10/2013 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 6 page Order for full text. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

WANKE CASCADE DISTRIBUTION
LTD., an Oregon corporation,

3:13-CV-00768-AC
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
FORBO FLOORING, INC., a
Delaware corporation
Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#19) on August 20, 2013, in which he recommends
the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion (#7)
to Dismiss.

Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b).
1 - ORDER

I.

Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff does not object.
Plaintiff1 does not object to the portions of the Finding

and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommends the
Court deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for
breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, and intentional interference with economic relations
(IIER).
When a party does not object to portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, this Court is relieved of
its obligation to review the record de novo as to those portions
of the Findings and Recommendation.

See 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).

Having reviewed the

legal principles de novo as to those portions of the Findings and
Recommendation to which Plaintiff does not object, the Court does
not find any error.
The Court, however, notes a clerical error in the Findings
and Recommendation.

In the body of the Findings and

Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge analyzes Plaintiff’s
claim for IIER, the Magistrate Judge concludes Plaintiff has
adequately alleged a claim for IIER based on Defendant’s attempts
to sell its products to Plaintiff’s customers immediately after
1

Defendant, in whose favor the Findings and Recommendation
runs as to these issues, also does not object.
2 - ORDER

notifying Plaintiff of the termination of the oral distributor
agreement, but the Magistrate Judge also concludes Plaintiff’s
claim for IIER based on Defendant hiring one of Plaintiff’s sales
representatives is “not well founded.”

Nevertheless, in the

Conclusion portion of the Findings and Recommendation the
Magistrate Judge denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
IIER claim in its entirety.

Having reviewed the legal principle

at issue, the Court concludes both parts of the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis of Plaintiff’s IIER claim are well-supported,
and, therefore, the Court adopts the Findings and Recommendation
as to that claim as herein modified; i.e., granting in part and
denying in part the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s IIER claim.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s IIER claim to the extent that Plaintiff bases
that claim on allegations that Defendant hired one of Plaintiff’s
sales representatives, but denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s IIER claim to the extent that Plaintiff bases that
claim on Defendant’s attempts to sell its products to Plaintiff’s
customers immediately after notifying Plaintiff of the
termination of the oral distributor agreement.
II.

Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which
Plaintiff objects.
Plaintiff objects to the portion of the Findings and

Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for
3 - ORDER

promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation.

Plaintiff

also seeks leave to amend its Complaint to seek to correct the
deficiencies in its claims for promissory estoppel and fraudulent
misrepresentation.
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See also Dawson, 561 F.3d at

932; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
Plaintiff reiterates in its Objections that the arguments
contained in its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and
stated at oral argument.

This Court has carefully considered

Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis
to modify the Findings and Recommendation.

The Court also has

reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does
not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, adopts the remainder of the Magistrate
Judge’s legal analysis.

Because the Magistrate Judge will retain

this case for further development, the Court concludes the
Magistrate Judge is in the best position to address Plaintiff’s
request to amend, which Defendant opposes.

Accordingly, the

Court refers that issue back to the Magistrate Judge.

4 - ORDER

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS as modified Magistrate Judge Acosta’s
Findings and Recommendation (#19) and, therefore, GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion (#7) to Dismiss as follows:
1.

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for promissory estoppel;

2.

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for fraudulent misrepresentation;

3.

GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for IIER to the extent that Plaintiff bases that claim
on allegations that Defendant hired one of Plaintiff’s
sales representatives;

4.

DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for IIER to the extent that Plaintiff bases that claim
on Defendant’s attempts to sell its products to
Plaintiff’s customers immediately after notifying
Plaintiff of the termination of the oral distributor
agreement;

5.

DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for breach of contract; and

6.

DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim
for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The Court refers to the Magistrate Judge the request of
Plaintiff for leave to amend its Complaint to correct the
5 - ORDER

deficiencies in its claims for promissory estoppel and fraudulent
misrepresentation set out in the Findings and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of December, 2013.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

6 - ORDER