Kaiser et al v. Cascade Capital LLC et al
OPINION and ORDER - I agree with Judge Acostas recommendations and ADOPT theF&R 56 as my own opinion. Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration 16 is GRANTED as to the question of whether the arbitration agreement encompasses FDCPA claims. Mr. Kais ers claims against Defendants are STAYED pending the arbitrators decision on whether Mr. Kaisers FDCPA claim is subject to arbitration. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 12th day of July, 2017, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman.. (peg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHAEL KAISER and MARGARET
J. LOEWEN, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated,
OPINION AND ORDER
CASCADE CAPITAL LLC and
GORDON AYLWORTH & TAMI
On March 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (“F&R”) , recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration
 should be GRANTED. Mr. Kaiser objected , and Defendants responded .
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
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
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 with 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 Acosta’s recommendations and ADOPT the
F&R  as my own opinion. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration  is GRANTED as
to the question of whether the arbitration agreement encompasses FDCPA claims. Mr. Kaiser’s
claims against Defendants are STAYED pending the arbitrator’s decision on whether Mr.
Kaisier’s FDCPA claim is subject to arbitration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
day of July, 2017.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman________
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?