Thames et al v. City of Portland et al
Filing
101
ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 93 . OLCC Defendants' Motion to Strike 72 is Denied to the extent that it addresses Paragraph 44. Otherwise, the Motion to Strike 72 is Granted. OLCC Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss 72 is Denied. City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 74 is also Denied. Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date of this Order (or by 6/18/2018) to file a second amended complaint consistent with Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation regarding OLCC Defendants' Motion to Strike. Signed on 6/7/18 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DONNA THAMES and COLUMBIA BAR
& GRILL INC., an Oregon Corporation, dba
EXOTICA,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:16-CV-01634-PK
v.
ORDER
CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal
corporation; STEVEN MARKS, JOHN
ECKHART; DAVID LUSTER; JEFFREY
BELL; SHANNON HOFFEDITZ; DAN
MCNEAL; MIKE BOYER; MERLE
LINDSEY; MARK KRUGER; and
JASON TALLMADGE,
Defendants.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [93] on March 6, 2018,
in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Strike [72]
filed by Defendants Eckhart, Hoffeditz, Lindsey, Marks, McNeal, and Tallmadge (“OLCC
1 - ORDER
Defendants”), deny the Motion to Dismiss [72] filed by OLCC Defendants, and deny the Motion
to Dismiss [74] filed by Defendants Kruger and Boyer (“City Defendants”). The matter is now
before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b).
Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation. City Def. Obj., ECF 98; OLCC Def. Obj., ECF 97. When any party objects to
any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Court has carefully considered Defendants’ objections and concludes there is no
basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent
portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings &
Recommendation.
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
2 - ORDER
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings and Recommendation [93].
OLCC Defendants’ Motion to Strike [72] is denied to the extent that it addresses ¶ 44.
Otherwise, the Motion to Strike is granted. OLCC Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [72] is
denied. City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [74] is also denied. Plaintiff shall have ten days
from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint consistent with Judge Papak’s
Findings & Recommendation regarding OLCC Defendants’ Motion to Strike.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ________________ day of June, 2018.
____________________________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
3 - 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?