Mattson v. New Penn Financial, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Yous Amended Findings and Recommendation 35 . The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss 14 . As described in the Findings and Recomme ndation, the motion to strike class allegations is denied without prejudice, and the motion to dismiss or strike the claim for an injunction, as set forth in section (e) of the Prayer for Relief, is granted. The Court also DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Motion to File a Surreply 20 . Signed on January 4, 2019 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ERIK MATTSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

No. 3:18-cv-00990-YY

ORDER

v.
NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge You issued an Amended Findings and Recommendation [35] on
November 6, 2018, in which she recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part
Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss [14] and deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to File a
Surreply [20]. 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).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Amended Findings and
Recommendation were timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de
1 - ORDER

novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also
United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only
for portions of Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed
the legal principles de novo, the Court finds no error.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge You’s Amended Findings and Recommendation
[35]. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or
Dismiss [14]. As described in the Findings and Recommendation, the motion to strike class
allegations is denied without prejudice, and the motion to dismiss or strike the claim for an
injunction, as set forth in section (e) of the Prayer for Relief, is granted. The Court also DENIES
as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to File a Surreply [20].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this

day of ________________, _________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

2 - ORDER