Zweizig v. Rote et al

Filing 41

ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation 35 . Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 19 is denied with respect to Plaintiff's first and second claims for relief, and granted with respect to Plaintiff's third claim for relief, which is dismissed with leave to amend. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 12/16/2014 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MAX ZWEIZIG,

No. 3:14-cv-00406-ST
Plaintiff,

v.
TIMOTHY C. ROTE, a citizen of the state of
Oregon; NORTHWEST DIRECT
TELESERVICES, INC., an Oregon forprofit corporation; NORTHWEST DIRECT
MARKETING OF OREGON, INC., an
Oregon for-profit corporation;
NORTHWEST DIRECT MARKETING,
INC., an Oregon for-profit corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10,
Defendant.
Linda L. Marshall
PMB 408
3 Monroe Parkway, Suite P
Lake Oswego OR 97035
///
///
///
1 - ORDER

ORDER

Shawn M. Sornson
SHAWN M. SORNSON PC
3415 Commercial Street S.E., Ste. 106
Salem, OR 97302
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jeffrey I. Hasson
DAVENPORT & HASSON LLP
120707 N.E. Halsey Street
Portland, OR 97230
Attorney for Defendants
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [35] on August 7 2014,
in which she recommends that the Court should grant in part and deny in part Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss. Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
The matter is now before me 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 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); 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 Defendants’ objections and conclude that the objections do
not provide a basis to modify the recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions
of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
//
//
//
2 - ORDER

CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Stewart’s Findings and Recommendation [35].
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [19] is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s first and
second claims for relief, and granted with respect to Plaintiff’s third claim for relief, which is
dismissed with leave to amend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of ____________________, 201_.

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER