Greenspan v. Fieldstone Financial Management Group, LLC et al

Filing 70

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation 65 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration 57 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Court vacates its prior Opinion & Order 41 only t o the extent it struck Defendants' fraud in the inducement defense without leave to amend. Defendants shall amend their pleadings within fourteen days of this Order to make a more definite and clear statement of their fraud in the inducement defense as discussed in Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation. Signed on 12/18/2018 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD GREENSPAN in his capacity
as Court-Appointed Receiver for
AEQUITAS CORPORATE LENDING, LLC,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:17-cv-00233-PK
ORDER

v.
FIELDSTONE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
GROUP, LLC, KRISTOFOR R. BEHN, and
CHRISTINE R. BEHN,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [65] on August 22,
2018, in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion
for Reconsideration [57]. 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).

1 - ORDER

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
Pl. Obj., ECF 67. 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 Plaintiff’s objections. Though the Court is not
convinced that this case presents a clear error requiring reconsideration, the Court has the
discretion to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders to correct mistakes. Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b) (“[A]ny order . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of
fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”); see also City of Los
Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing
Melancon v. Texaco, 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981)) (“[A]s long as a district court has
jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind,
or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.”). In exercising that
discretion, the Court adopts the conclusion reached by Judge Papak regarding striking the fraud
in the inducement defense. Accordingly, Defendants may replead their fraud in the inducement
defense to meet the requirements of Rule 9.
The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no
other error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS in part Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation [65]
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration [57] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the

2 - ORDER

Court vacates its prior Opinion & Order [41] only to the extent it struck Defendants’ fraud in the
inducement defense without leave to amend. Defendants shall amend their pleadings within
fourteen days of this Order to make a more definite and clear statement of their fraud in the
inducement defense as discussed in Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ________________ day of ____________, 2018.

____________________________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER