DTL Builders, Inc. v. RI KY Roofing & Sheet Metal, LLC

Filing 105

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's F&R (doc. 82 in 6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 95 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK) as clarified in his Order (doc. 85 in 6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 98 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK). DTL's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 66 in 6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 68 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK) is DENIED. DTL's Motion in Limine (doc. 69 in 6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 71 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK) is DENIED as moot for purposes of summary judgment only. Signed on 7/3/2019 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. Associated Cases: 6:17-cv-01592-MK, 6:17-cv-01251-MK (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
RI KY ROOFING & SHEET METAL, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company,

Case No. 6:17-cv-01592-MK
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
DTL BUILDERS, INC., a Utah corporation,
and THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Ohio surety
Defendants.
DTL BUILDERS, INC., a Utah corporation,

Case No. 6:17-cv-01251-MK
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
RI KY ROOFING & SHEET METAL, LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company,
Defendant.
AIKEN, Judge:
United States Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai filed this Findings and
Recommendations ("F&R") on April 29, 2019. (Doc. 82 in 6:17-cv-01592-MK, Doc. 95

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

in 6:17-cv-01251-MK). The F&R recommended that this Court deny DTL's Motion
for Summary Judgment and deny DTL's Motion in Limine with prejudice. The
matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b).
On May 6, 2019, DTL filed a "Request for Clarification or, in the Alternative,
Objection to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation" (doc. 84 in 6:17-cv01592-MK, doc. 97 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK). The request pointed out that its Motion in
Limine was directed at both the Court's disposition of its summary judgment motion
and the evidence for trial.

DTL stated that it did not take issue with Judge

Kasubhai's recommendation that its Motion in Limine be denied as moot with respect
to summary judgment, but asserted that Judge Kasubhai's recommendation of denial
with prejudice goes beyond his findings and would preclude DTL from renewing the
motion at trial. DTL asked Judge Kasubhai to confirm that his recommendation on
the Motion in Limine was focused on the lVIotion for Summary Judgment and to
recommend that its Motion in Limine be denied without prejudice. Finally, DTL
stated that it would object to the F&R "[t]o the extent Magistrate Judge Kasubhai
retains his recommendation that DTL's Motion in Limine be denied with prejudice[.]"
Request at 5.
In response, Judge Kasubhai issued an Order clarifying the F&R as follows:
"The Court denies DTL's Motion in Limine ... as moot for the purposes of summary
judgment only. DTL's Motion in Limine is denied without prejudice." (Doc. 85 in
6:17-cv-01592-MK, Doc. 98 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK).

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Because Judge Kasubhai

reconsidered his F&R as DTL requested, there are no objections to the F&R, as
clarified in Judge Kasubhai's order.
Although this relieves me ofmy obligation to perform a de nova review, I retain
the obligation to "make an informed, final determination."

Britt v. Simi Valley

Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds,
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). The
Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases where no objections
are filed. Ray v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the
recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for "clear error
on the face of the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (1983) (citing

Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also
United States v. Vann, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, "[i]n the absence of a
clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a reliable source of
insight into the meaning of' a federal rule). Having reviewed the file of this case, I
find no clear error.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kasubhai's F&R (doc. 82 in
6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 95 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK) as clarified in his Order (doc. 85 in
6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 98 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK).

DTL's Motion for Summary

Judgment (doc. 66 in 6:17-cv-01592-MK, doc. 68 in 6:17-cv-01251-MK) is DENIED.
DTL's Motion in Limine (doc. 69 in 6: 17-cv-01592-lVIK, doc. 71 in 6:l 7-cv-01251-MK)
is DENIED as moot for purposes of summary judgment only.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this, 3P.Qay of July 2019.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER