Anderson v. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DIANE ANDERSON, et al., No. 3:20-cv-01194-AR

Plaintiff(s), ORDER

v.

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, et al.,

Defendant(s).

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge Armistead issued a Findings and Recommendation on September 5, 2023, in which he recommends that this Court deny both Defendant Pacific Premier Bank’s Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Riverview Community Bank’s Motion to Dismiss. F&R, ECF 111. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. Def. Obj., ECF 122 and 124. 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); 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). The Court has carefully considered Defendants’ objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation. CONCLUSION The Court adopts in full Magistrate Judge Armistead’s Findings and Recommendation [ECF 111]. Therefore, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF 65 and ECF 72] are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ___N_o_v_e_m__b_e_r _2_0_, _2_0_2_3_____.

___________________________ MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ United States District Judge