Holdner v. Krietzberg et al

Filing 27

ORDER OF REFERRAL: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acostas recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 24 in full. Defendants Mitchell and Leonards Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court 8 is GRANTED and the Krietzberg Defendants Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court and Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant 10 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint, as to the third claim, in the United States Bankruptcy Court fo r the District of Oregon. The Clerk shall transfer the file to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, the current action before the District Court is closed. Signed on 4/23/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 4/23/2019.) (kms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
WILLIAM F. HOLDNER,
No. 3:18-cv-01054-AC
Plaintiff,
ORDER OF REFERRAL
v.
RICHARD A. KRIETZBERG, STEVEN
KRIETZBERG, AMY E. MITCHELL, and
JUSTIN D. LEONARD,
Defendants.

MOSMAN, J.,
On March 14, 2019, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) [24], recommending that I grant Defendants Mitchell and Leonard’s
Motion to Refer Matter to the Bankruptcy Court [8] and grant in part and deny in part the
Krietzberg Defendants’ Motion to Refer to Bankruptcy Court and Motion to Label Plaintiff a
Vexatious Litigant [10]. Plaintiff William Holdner filed Objections to the F&R [26]. No
responses were filed.
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,

1 – ORDER OF REFERRAL

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo 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)(1)(C). However, the court
is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal 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)(1)(C).
The F&R finds that Plaintiff’s Claims One, Two, and Four bear a close nexus to ongoing
matters in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon and therefore recommends that these
claims be referred to that court. It also recommends that I dismiss Claim Three without
prejudice due to insufficient pleading and an underdeveloped record, preserving Defendants’
right to renew their motion to dismiss should Plaintiff amend the pleading. Finally, the F&R
recommends that I not label Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
In his Objections, Mr. Holdner asks me to appoint an attorney to represent a class of
minority shareholders, arguing that this court has jurisdiction because the current suit is a class
action. Because no class has been certified nor has Mr. Holdner moved to certify a class, I agree
with Judge Acosta’s findings.
CONCLUSION
Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [24]
in full. Defendants Mitchell and Leonard’s Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court [8] is
GRANTED and the Krietzberg Defendants’ Motion to Refer to the Bankruptcy Court and

2 – ORDER OF REFERRAL

Motion to Label Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant [10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff has thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint, as to the third claim, in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon.
The Clerk shall transfer the file to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Oregon, the current action before the District Court is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ____ day of April, 2019.
23

_______________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

3 – ORDER OF REFERRAL