United States District Court, D. Oregon
Michael H. Simon United States District Judge.
States Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and
Recommendation in this case on November 14, 2016. ECF 34.
Judge Papak recommended that Plaintiffs Motion to Remand to
State Court (ECF 8) be granted and Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (ECF 25) be denied as moot.
the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), the Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a
magistrate's findings and recommendations, "the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made." Id; Fed. R. Civ.
timely filed an objection. ECF 36. Defendants object that
Judge Papak erred when he found that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that the Court has
jurisdiction because this case "relates to an
arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention
[on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards]." 9 U.S.C. § 205; see also 9
U.S.C. § 203 (providing for subject matter jurisdictions
for actions falling under the Convention). Defendants offer
three arguments for why the award issued by the International
Court of Arbitration on July 16, 2015 (the "Arbitral
Award") relates to this case. ECF 19-9. First,
Defendants argue that Plaintiff seeks to enforce the Arbitral
Award against Defendant Belbadi as an "alter ego"
of third parties iCapital, Dhaheri, and Vandevco. Plaintiff
responds that it does not seek to enforce the Arbitral Award
against Defendants in any claim for relief. The Court accepts
Defendants argue that the Arbitral Award will affect
Plaintiffs effort to establish personal jurisdiction over
Belbadi. Third, Defendants argue that the Arbitral Award
could establish the amount of damages, attorney's fees,
and costs that Plaintiff seeks to recover. Defendants,
however, did not raise either their second or third arguments
before Judge Papak. Thus, the Court does not consider
these latter two arguments. Greenhow v. Sec 'y of
Health & Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633, 638-39 (9th
Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds, United States v.
Hardesty, 977 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1992) ("We do not
believe that the Magistrates Act was intended to give
litigants an opportunity to run one version of their case
past the magistrate, then another past the district
Court has reviewed de novo those portions of Judge
Papak's Findings and Recommendation to which Defendants
have objected, as well as Defendants' objections and
Plaintiffs response. The Court agrees with Judge Papak's
reasoning regarding the lack of relatedness of the Arbitral
Award to this case and ADOPTS those portions of the Findings
those portions of a magistrate's findings and
recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act
does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v.
Am, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) ("There is no
indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to
require a district judge to review a magistrate's report
to which no objections are filed."); United States.
v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc) (holding that the court must review de novo
magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is
made, "but not otherwise"). Although in the absence
of objections no review is required, the Magistrates Act
"does not preclude further review by the district
judge sua sponte . . . under a de novo or
any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.
Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)
recommend that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed,
" the Court review the magistrate's recommendations
for "clear error on the face of the record." For
those portions of Judge Papak's Findings and
Recommendation to which neither party has objected, this
Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
and reviews those matters for clear error on the face of the
record. No such error is apparent.
Court ADOPTS Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation,
ECF 34. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF 8) is
GRANTED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 25) is DENIED
 Thus, for similar reasons,
Defendants' anticipated defense that the Arbitral Award
is unenforceable against them does not support
The Court notes that Belbadi has
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Belbadi, however, did not argue in that motion that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this case on the grounds
that the Arbitral Award will affect ...