Dallas Buyers Club, LLC v. Doe-173.11.1.241

Filing 59

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Amended Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. 53 ). Dallas's Motion to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. 37 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Dallas's proposed amendment adding facts p urporting to show spoliation is granted. Dallas's request to remove Integrity and substitute Huszar as the defendant is granted, but only with respect to Integrity's claims for direct and indirect copyright infringement. Dallas's third claim for failure to register an assumed business name is dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 5/31/2016 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALLAS BUYERS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00907-AC
ORDER

v.
INTEGRITY COMPUTER SERVICES,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Amended Findings and
Recommendation in this case on April 29, 2016 (Dkt. 53). Judge Acosta recommended that
Defendant Dallas Buyers, LLC’s (“Dallas” or “Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file an amended
complaint be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Acosta recommended that:
(1) Dallas’s proposed amendment adding facts purporting to show spoliation be granted;
(2) Dallas’s request to remove Defendant Integrity Computer Services (“Integrity” or
“Defendant”) and substitute John Huszar (“Huszar”) as the defendant be granted, but only with
respect to Integrity’s claims for direct and indirect copyright infringement; and (3) Dallas’s third
claim for failure to register an assumed business name be dismissed with prejudice.

PAGE 1 – ORDER

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court
shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”);
United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the
court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but
not otherwise”).
Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude
further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings
and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”
No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory
Committee and reviews Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the
face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta’s
Amended Findings and Recommendation (Dkt. 53). Dallas’s Motion to File an Amended
Complaint (Dkt. 37) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Dallas’s proposed
amendment adding facts purporting to show spoliation is granted. Dallas’s request to remove
Integrity and substitute Huszar as the defendant is granted, but only with respect to Integrity’s

PAGE 2 – ORDER

claims for direct and indirect copyright infringement. Dallas’s third claim for failure to register
an assumed business name is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2016.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

PAGE 3 – ORDER