SD Holdings LLC v. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation 42 , and therefore, the Association's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 13 is granted. The Association's motions for Rule 11 sanctions is denied 26 as moot without prejudice to refiling. See 2-page order attached. Signed on 7/22/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SD HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:13-cv-01296-AC
ORDER

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation,
Defendant.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings & Recommendation [42] on April 24,
2014, recommending that Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association’s (“AOPA”) motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction be
granted and the case dismissed without prejudice to refiling in another district. Magistrate Judge
Acosta also recommended that the AOPA’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions be denied as moot
without prejudice to refiling such a motion should SD Holdings fail to refile this action in the
1 - ORDER

proper jurisdiction. SD Holdings timely filed objections to the personal jurisdiction portion of
Judge Acosta’s Findings & Recommendation, and the matter is now before me pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Findings &
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); 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).
I have carefully considered SD Holdings’ objections and conclude there is no basis to
modify the Findings & Recommendation. At AOPA’s request, I have “take[n] into account the
factual circumstances of SD [Holdings’] lawsuit” and found no basis for modifying Magistrate
Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation regarding Rule 11 sanctions. I have reviewed the
pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's
Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings & Recommendation [42], and
therefore, the Association’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [13] is granted.
The Association’s motions for Rule 11 sanctions is denied [26] as moot without prejudice to
refiling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of July, 2014.

____________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
2 - ORDER