Stoss v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, National Association

Filing 30

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 26 . The Court, therefore, GRANTS Defendant's Motion 14 to Dismiss, DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation, and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UTPA. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 2/14/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

VILMA STOSS,

3:13-CV-01068-AC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#26) on December 19, 2013, in which he recommends
the Court grant Defendant's Motion (#14) to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint; dismiss Plaintiff's claim for negligent
misrepresentation with prejudice; and dismiss Plaintiff's claims
for promissory estoppel, breach of good faith and fair dealing,
and violation of Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act
without prejudice.

Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Procedure 72(b).
1 - ORDER

(UTPA)

§

The matter is now before this Court

636(b) (1) and Federal Rule of Civil

I.

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

and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommends the
Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for
negligent misrepresentation and violation of the UTPA.
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.
F.3d 930, 932

(9th Cir. 2009).

See Dawson v. Marshall,

561

See also United States v. Reyna-

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane).
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.

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
promissory estoppel and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing.
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
1 - ORDER

report.

28 U.S.C.

§

636(b) (1).

See also Dawson, 561 F.3d at

932; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.
In her Objections Plaintiff reiterates the arguments
contained in her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

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.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and
Recommendation (#26).

The Court, therefore, GRANTS Defendant's

Motion (#14) to Dismiss, DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's
claim for negligent misrepresentation, and DISMISSES without
prejudice Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel, breach of

good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UTPA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

1 - ORDER