Sundberg v. Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee of the Northwest Line Construction Industry et al

Filing 102

OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 94 . Defendants' MYR and Quanta's Motions to Dismiss 16 & 50 are Granted and the claims against MYR and Quanta are Dismissed with prejudice. Signed on 1/23/19 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

RHIANNON SUNDBERG,

Plaintiff,

No. 3:17-cv-01360-JR

v.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOINT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING
COMMITTEE OF THE NORTHWEST
LINE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
et al.,

Defendants.

MOSMAN,J.,

On December 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [94], recommending that Defendant MYR Group, Inc.'s ("MYR") and
Defendant Quanta Services Inc.'s ("Quanta") Motions to Dismiss [16, 50] should be
GRANTED. Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R [96] and Defendants MYR and Quanta filed
Responses to the Objections [97, 99].
DISCUSSION

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 nova determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the
court is not required to review, de nova or under any other standard, the factual or legal

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

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 under 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)(l)(C).
Plaintiff Rhiannon Sundberg brings claims for gender discrimination and whistleblower
retaliation. After an eight-month period of jurisdictional discovery, Defendants MYR and
Quanta moved to dismiss for lack of both general and specific jurisdiction.
The F &R recommends granting the motions. Given the complete period of jurisdictional
discovery and the absence of any compelling evidence under any jurisdictional theory, the F&R
recommends dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiff objects. In doing so, however, she merely repeats the arguments and facts she
raised below. I have reviewed the F &R's analysis of the arguments raised by Plaintiff and I find
it thoughtful and correct.

CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [94]
as my own opinion. Defendants' MYR and Quanta's Motions to Dismiss [16, 50] are
GRANTED and the claims against MYR and Quanta are dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

_:li day of January, 2019 .

~

.

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 - OPINION AND ORDER