Westrope et al v. Ringler Associates Incorporated et al

Filing 174

OPINION AND ORDER. I agree with Judge You's recommendations and ADOPT the F & R 168 as my own opinion. Defendants Ringler and Hoffman's Motion to Dismiss 131 is DENIED as MOOT as to former Plaintiff Culhane, and otherwise DENIED . Defendants Casey, Bell, Mathews, Farber, Weber, Kelly, and Blattenberg's Motion to Dismiss 138 is DENIED in part to the extent they join Ringler and Hoffman's Motion to Dismiss 138 for failure to state a claim, and otherwise GRANTED in part for lack of personal jurisdiction. The claims against Defendants Casey, Bell, Mathews, Farber, Weber, Kelly, and Blattenberg are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed on 4/11/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

MARIE WESTROPE and REGGIE
KELLY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
No. 3:14-cv-00604-YY
Plaintiffs,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
RINGLER ASSOCIATES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
On February 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [168], recommending that (1) Defendants Ringler and Hoffman’s
Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim [131] should be DENIED as MOOT as to former
Plaintiff Culhane, and otherwise should be DENIED, and (2) Defendants Casey, Bell, Mathews,
Farber, Weber, Kelly, and Blattenberg’s Motion to Dismiss [138] should be DENIED in part and
GRANTED in part. Neither party filed objections.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R
depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject,
or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon careful review, I agree with Judge You’s recommendations and ADOPT the F&R
[168] as my own opinion. Defendants Ringler and Hoffman’s Motion to Dismiss [131] is
DENIED as MOOT as to former Plaintiff Culhane, and otherwise DENIED. Defendants Casey,
Bell, Mathews, Farber, Weber, Kelly, and Blattenberg’s Motion to Dismiss [138] is DENIED in
part to the extent they join Ringler and Hoffman’s Motion to Dismiss [138] for failure to state a
claim, and otherwise GRANTED in part for lack of personal jurisdiction. The claims against
Defendants Casey, Bell, Mathews, Farber, Weber, Kelly, and Blattenberg are DISMISSED with
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

11th

day of April, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER