Dodd v. AA & S Corporation, et al

Filing 39

ORDER - The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acostas Findingsand Recommendation 37 . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in partand DENIES in part Defendants Motion to Dismiss 8 . The CourtGRANTS Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Orf for negligence and reckless disregard; Plaintiffsclaims against Defendants United Vanlines and Hilldrup fornegligent entrustment, training, and supervision; and Plaintiffsclaim for vicarious liability. The Court, however, GRANTSPlaintif f leave to re-plead those claims by a date to bedetermined by the Magistrate Judge. The Court DENIES DefendantsMotion to Dismiss Plaintiffs claims against Defendants UnitedVanlines and Hilldrup for negligent hiring and retention. The Court returns this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further handling and to set a deadline for Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.DATED this 12th day of September, 2017, by United States District Judge Anna J. Brown. (peg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TIFFANY DODD,

3:17-cv-00246-AC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
AA & S CORPORATION, d/b/a A & R
TRANSPORT, a Utah Corporation;
JASON ATWOOD and JANE DOE ATWOOD;
UNITED VANLINES, LLC, a Missouri
Limited Liability Corporation;
HILLDRUP COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a
HILLDRUP MOVING & STORAGE, a
Virginia Corporation; and LONNIE
ORF and JANE DOE ORF,
Defendants.
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#37) on August 25, 2017, in which he recommends
this Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion (#8) to
Dismiss filed by Defendants United Vanlines, LLC, Hilldrup
Companies, Inc. d/b/a Hilldrup Moving & Storage, and Lonnie Orf.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1 - ORDER

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its
obligation to review the record de novo.
561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009).

See Dawson v. Marshall,

See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not
find any error.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta’s Findings
and Recommendation (#37).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part

and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion (#8) to Dismiss.

The Court

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Orf for negligence and reckless disregard; Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants United Vanlines and Hilldrup for
negligent entrustment, training, and supervision; and Plaintiff’s
claim for vicarious liability.

The Court, however, GRANTS

Plaintiff leave to replead those claims by a date to be
determined by the Magistrate Judge.

The Court DENIES Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants United
Vanlines and Hilldrup for negligent hiring and retention.

2 - ORDER

The Court returns this matter to the Magistrate Judge for
further handling and to set a deadline for Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States Senior District Judge

3 - ORDER