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.

Andriesian v. Cosmetic Dermatology, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 28, 2015

HILARY ANDRIESIAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant.

ORDER

MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation [25] on March 3, 2015, in which she recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [15]. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Defendant filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 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).

I have carefully considered Defendant's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [25]. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [15] is granted as to the alleged violations of ORS 646.608(1)(f), (t) and (u) in the First Claim; granted as to the Second Claim; and otherwise denied.

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.