Surina et al v. NuScale Power, LLC et al

Filing 60

ORDER: The Court adopts Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation 53 . Therefore, Defendant NuScale's Motion to Dismiss 18 , Defendant Flour's Motion to Dismiss 22 , and Defendants JNI and S&L's joint Motion to Dismiss 21 are granted in part and denied in part as set forth in Magistrate Judge You's Findings and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 11/13/2023 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHN J. SURINA, JR., trustee of the Elizabeth
Sophia Surina Trust and Nicholas William Surina
Trust; BRUCE LANDREY, an individual; PAUL
LORENZINI, an individual; RICHARD SANDVIK,
an individual; EDWARD G. WALLACE, an
individual; JACK A. BAILEY, an individual;
GARY CARL BARBOUR, an individual; PAUL D.
BENNETT, an individual; JAMES E. CARTER, an
individual; CHARLES MARCINKIEWICZ, trustee
of the Charles & Kathleen Marcinkiewicz Trust;
MICHAEL S. MCGOUGH, an individual;
CHRISTOPHER RUNCKEL, an individual; and
JOE CLAYTON TURNAGE, an individual; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NUSCALE POWER, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company; FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California corporation; JAPAN NUSCALE
INNOVATION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SARGENT & LUNDY NUHOLDINGS,
LLC, an Illinois limited liability company,,
Defendants.

1 - ORDER

No. 3:22-cv-01410-YY
ORDER

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge You issued a Findings and Recommendation on August 3, 2023, in
which she recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant NuScale’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF 18), Defendant Flour’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 22), and Defendants
JNI and S&L’s joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF 21). F&R, ECF 53. 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).
Plaintiffs and Defendant NuScale Power, LLC filed timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Pl. Obj., ECF 55; Def NuScale Obj., ECF 56. When any
party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 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 the Plaintiffs’ and Defendant NuScale Power, LLC’s
objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The
Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation [53].
Therefore, Defendant NuScale’s Motion to Dismiss [18], Defendant Flour’s Motion to Dismiss
[22], and Defendants JNI and S&L’s joint Motion to Dismiss [21] is are granted in part and
denied in part as set forth in Magistrate Judge You’s Findings and Recommendation.

2 - ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________________.
November 13, 2023

___________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER