Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc. et al
Filing
259
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Russos recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 246 as my own opinion. Mr. Makaneoles Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint 230 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Mr. Makaneole m ay amend his complaint with respect to his ORS Chapter 652 claims but may not amend with respect to his Chapter 653 claims. The amended complaint is due fourteen days from the date of this order Signed on 9/23/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
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.,
No. 3:14-cv-1528-JR
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant.
MOSMAN, J.,
On June 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) [246], recommending that Plaintiff Michael Makaneole’s Motion to
File a Second Amended Complaint [230] be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants
SolarWorld Industries America, Inc., SolarWorld Industries America, LP, SolarWorld Industries
Services, LLC, and SolarWorld Power Projects, Inc. filed an objection [252], to which
Mr. Makaneole responded [255].
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,
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
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 review, I agree with Judge Russo’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [246]
as my own opinion. Mr. Makaneole’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint [230] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Mr. Makaneole may amend his complaint
with respect to his ORS Chapter 652 claims but may not amend with respect to his Chapter 653
claims. The amended complaint is due fourteen days from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2019.
___________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?