United States District Court, D. Oregon
DULCICH, INC. dba PACIFIC SEAFOOD GROUP, et al., Plaintiffs,
MAYER BROWN, LLP, Defendant
For Dulcich, Inc., doing business as Pacific Seafood Group, Frank Dulcich, Pacific Seafood Group Acquisition Company, Inc, Pacific Seafood Washington Acquisition Co., Inc., Bandon Pacific, Inc., Bio-Oregon Protein, Inc., Pacific Choice Seafood Company, Pacific Coast Seafoods Company, Pacific Garibaldi, Inc., Pacific Gold Seafood Company, Pacific Pride Sea Food Company, Pacific Sea Food Co., Pacific Surimi Co., Inc., Pacific Tuna Company, LLC, Washington Crab Producers, Inc., Pacific Alaska Shellfish, Inc., Sea Level Seafoods, LLC, Island Fish Co., LLC, Pacific Resurrection Bay, Inc., Pacific Conquest, Inc., Calamari, LLC, Jo Marie, LLC, Leslie Lee, LLC, Miss Pacific, LLC, Pacific Future, LLC, Pacific Grumpy J, LLC, Pacific Hooker, LLC, Pacific Horizon, LLC, Pacific Knight, LLC, Privateer, LLC, Sea Princess, LLC, Triple Star, LLC, Pacific Fishing, LLC, Pacific Sea Food of Arizona, Inc., Starfish Investments, Inc., Dulcich Surimi, LLC, Bio-Oregon Properties, LLC, Pacific Group Transport Co., Pacific Marketing Group, Inc., Pacific Russia, Inc., Pacific Russia Ventures, LLC, Pacific Tuna Holding Company, Inc., Powell Street Market, LLC, Pacific Fresh Sea Food Company, Seacliff Seafoods, Inc., Copper River Resource Holding Co., Inc., Pacific Copper River Acquisition Co., Inc., Sea Level Seafoods Acquisition, Inc., Island Coho, LLC, S& S Seafood Co., Inc., Pacific Seafood Disc., Inc., Dulcich Realty, LLC, Dulcich Realty Acquisition, LLC, Dulcich Jet, LLC, Dulcich, Inc., Plaintiffs: Richard A. Lee, LEAD ATTORNEY, Deanna L. Wray, Justin M. Thorp, Bodyfelt Mount LLP, Portland, OR.
For Mayer Brown LLP, Defendant: David B. Markowitz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Chad M. Colton, Kerry J. Shepherd, Markowitz Herbold Glade & Mehlhaf, PC, Portland, OR.
ANNA J. BROWN, United States District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#45) on March 19, 2013, in which she recommends the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion (#4) to Remand and strike Defendants' Motion (#22) to Dismiss and Motion (#6) to Change or Transfer Venue. Defendant filed timely Objections (#47) to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
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). See also 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 ).
In its Objections Defendant argues the Magistrate Judge's conclusion in the Findings and Recommendation was erroneous because the Magistrate Judge misinterpreted the basis for Defendant's removal to be the real-party-in-interest doctrine as opposed to fraudulent joinder. The Court does not find this argument compelling in light of the fact that the Magistrate Judge addressed the issue of fraudulent joinder in the context of timeliness of removal, and, in any event, Defendant's argument does not change the analysis or outcome as to the timeliness of Defendant's removal action. Defendant otherwise merely reiterates the arguments contained in its Surreply (#35) in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Thus, this Court has carefully considered Defendant's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.
The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#45) and, accordingly, GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion (#4) to Remand and STRIKES as moot Defendant's Motion (#22) to ...