Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc. et al

Filing 146

ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 126 . Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents 79 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Interrogatory Respon ses 81 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Solarworld's Motion for Summary Judgment 82 is Denied; Kelly's Motion for Summary Judgment 84 is Granted; Randstad's Motion for Summary Judgment 86 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Kelly's Request for Judicial Notice 119 is Granted; and Randstad's Request for Judicial Notice 122 is Granted. Signed on 1/17/17 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually
and on behalf of all similarly
situated,

3:14-CV-01528-PK
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA,
INC.; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES
AMERICA, LP; SOLARWORLD
INDUSTRIES SERVICES, LLC;
SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS,
INC., RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS US,
LP, and KELLY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation (#126) on September 2, 2016, in which he
recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion
1 -

ORDER

(#79) to Compel Production of Documents of Plaintiff Michael
Makaneole; grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's Motion
(#81) to Compel Interrogatory Responses; deny the Motion (#82)
for Summary Judgment of Defendants Solarworld Industries America,
Inc., Solarworld Industries America, LP, Solarworld Industries
Serivces, LLC, and Solarworld Power Projects, Inc (collectively
Solarworld); grant the Motion (#84) for Summary Judgment of
Defendant Kelly Services, Inc.; grant in part and deny in part
the Motion (#86) for Summary Judgment of Defendant Randstad US,
LP; grant Kelly's Request (#119) for Judicial Notice; and grant
Randstad's Request (#122) for Judicial Notice.
Solarworld, Randstad, and Plaintiff filed timely Objections
to the Findings and Recommendation.
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

The matter is now before
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.

F.3d 930, 932

§

636(b) (1).

See also Dawson v. Marshall,

561

(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane).
The Court has carefully considered the Objections of
Solarworld, Randstad, and Plaintiff and concludes they do not
provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.

2 - ORDER

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 Papak's Findings and
Recommendation (#126).
1.

Accordingly, the Court:

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion

(#79) to Compel Production of Documents;
2.

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion

(#81) to Compel Interrogatory Responses;
3.

DENIES Solarworld's Motion (#82) for Summary Judgment;

4.

GRANTS Kelly's Motion (#84) for Summary Judgment;

5.

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Randstad's Motion

(#86) for Summary Judgment;
6.

GRANTS Kelly's Request (#119) for Judicial Notice; and

7.

GRANTS Randstad's Request (#122) for Judicial Notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 17th day of January, 2017.

A~~

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER