Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stoss v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 14, 2014

VILMA STOSS, Plaintiff,
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant.

ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#26) on December 19, 2013, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendant's Motion (#14) to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; dismiss Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation with prejudice; and dismiss Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) without prejudice. Plaintiff filed timely Objections 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).

I. Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff does not object.

Plaintiff does not object to the portions of the Findings and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and violation of the UTPA.

When a party does not object to portions of a Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo as to those portions of the Findings and Recommendation. See Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) ( en bane ).

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo as to those portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff does not object, the Court does not find any error.

II. Portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects.

Plaintiff objects to the portion of the Findings and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

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, 561 F.3d at 932; Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

In her Objections Plaintiff reiterates the arguments contained in her Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff'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.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#26). The Court, therefore, GRANTS Defendant's Motion (#14) to Dismiss, DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation, and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's claims for promissory estoppel, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the UTPA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.