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.

Wong v. Rosenblatt

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 11, 2014

MARTHA WONG and DANIEL A. BERNATH, Pro Se Plaintiffs,
v.
RANDY ROSENBLATT, and individual doing business as DISABILITY N.W. LLC, DISABILITY LAW OFFICE NW, LLC, MICK ROSENBLATT, LIELA ROSENBLATT, BARNSLEY ENTERPRISE LLC, PAT GOODMAN, LEILA R. AND MILTON L. ROSENBLATT LIVING TRUST, ROBERT GREEN, MILTON L. GOODMAN, ONPOINTE COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, and DANIEL MULTOPS, Defendants. PAT GOODMAN, DISABILITY LAW OFFICE NW, LLC, LIELA ROSENBLATT, LIELA R. AND MILTON L. ROSENBLATT LIVING TRUST, MICK ROSENBLATT, ROBERT GREEN, and RANDY ROSENBLATT, Counter-Claimants,
v.
MARTHA WONG and DANIEL A. BERNATH Counter-Defendants.

RICHARD W. TODD, Todd & Shannon, LLP, Troutdale, OR, Attorney for Defendants Milton L. Goodman Disability Law Office NW, LLC, Barnsley Enterprise LLC, and Defendants and Counter-Claimants Randy Rosenblatt, Mick Rosenblatt, Liela Rosenblatt, Pat Goodman, Leila R. and Milton L. Rosenblatt Living Trust and Robert Green.

MELISSA E. BEYER, Farleigh Wada Witt, PC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendant, OnPointe Community Credit Union.

CHRISTOPHER E. HAWK CRAIG J. MARIAM Gordon & Rees LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant, Daniel Multops.

WILLIAM A. DAVIS, Davis Rothwell Earle & Xochihua, PC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Counter-Defendants.

ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (#112) on March 4, 2014, in which she recommends this Court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On April 7, 2014, this Court took under advisement Plaintiffs' Motion (#3) to Appoint Receiver and/or Motion for Preliminary Injunction and review of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (#112).

No objections were filed to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. On March 17, 2014 before the deadline to file objections, however, Plaintiffs filed a Motion Motion (#126) for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (which the Court notes should be a reference to a Second Amended Complaint). The Magistrate Judge entered an Order (#138) taking Plaintiff's Motion (#126) for Leave under advisement on April 21, 2014.

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. 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 bane ). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#112) and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (#98) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion (#3) to Appoint Receiver and/or for Preliminary Injunction for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court's ruling herein is without prejudice to the Magistrate Judge's consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion (#126) for Leave to Amend.

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.