Richmond v. Chrysler Group LLC, et al
ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 9 . Defendant Sweeney's Motion to Dismiss 3 is Granted and Defendant Chrysler's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue 5 is Denied. Signed on 3/10/17 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
BETH RICHMOND, Personal
Representative of the Estate of JASON
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware
Foreign limited liability company, and
JAKE SWEENEY CHRYSLER JEEP
DODGE, INC., an Ohio corporation,
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation  on December 2,
2016, recommending that Defendant Sweeney’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction  be granted, and Defendant Chrysler’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for
Improper Venue  be denied. Chrysler has timely filed objections  to the Findings &
1 – ORDER
Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When a 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).
I have carefully considered Defendant’s objections and conclude there is no basis to
modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the
record de novo and find no errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation , and
therefore, Defendant Sweeney’s Motion to Dismiss  is GRANTED, and Defendant Chrysler’s
Motion to Dismiss or Transfer for Improper Venue  is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this _______ day of ____________________, 2017.
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
2 – 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?