Estate of Robert W. Petersen et al v. Koelsch Senior Communities LLC et al, No. 1:2022cv00011 - Document 33 (D. Mont. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL for 15 Motion to Dismiss filed by Koelsch Senior Communities LLC, Billings Partners, LLC. For these reasons, the Court finds that Canyon Creek is not entitled toimmunity under the PREP Act. Accordingly, Judge Cavan's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 29) are ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Canyon Creek's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 3/1/2023. (AMC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Estate of Robert W. Petersen et al v. Koelsch Senior Communities LLC et al Doc. 33 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION ESTATE OF ROBERT W. PETERSON, by and through Robert T. CV 22-11-BLG-SPW Petersen as Personal Representative', ESTATE OF MARY ANN SIMONS, by and through Dean Simons as ORDER Personal Representative', ESTATE OF CHARLOTTE ELAINE GUILFORD, by and through Charles Guilford as Personal Representative, Plaintiffs, vs. KOELSCH SENIOR COMMUNITIES,LLC;BILLINGS PARTNERS,LLC,d/b/a CANYON CREEK; OLIVIA ELLEN,LLC, Defendants. Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan's Findings and Recommendations,filed December 19, 2022. (Doc. 29). Judge Cavan recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss(Doc. 16)filed by Defendant Koelsch Senior Communities,LLC,and Billings Partners, LLC, d/b/a Canyon Creek (collectively,"Canyon Creek"). Canyon Creek timely objected to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 30). After a careful review ofthe filed objections and Plaintiff Estate ofRobert W.Petersen, Estate of Mary Ann Simons, Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 2 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 3 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 4 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 5 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 6 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 7 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 8 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 9 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 10 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 11 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 12 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 13 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 14 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 15 of 16 Case 1:22-cv-00011-SPW-TJC Document 33 Filed 03/01/23 Page 16 of 16 Christensen v. Harris Cty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) ... Such opinions are '"entitled to respect' ... to the extent that those interpretations have the 'power to persuade."' [Id.] (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)). 591 F. Supp. 3d 892, 899 (D. Mont. 2022) (footnote omitted). Though Estate of Champion generally addressed the same jurisdictional issue on a motion to remand as Saldanas, the case it relied upon to disregard the Advisory Opinion-Christensen-does not. See Christensen, 829 U.S. at 586-87 (refusing to give deference to a Department of Labor opinion letter to interpret substantive provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act). Thus, the Court follows its holding in Estate of Champion, overrules Canyon Creek's objection, and adopts Judge Cavan's recommendation to not defer to the Advisory Opinion. IV. Conclusion For these reasons, the Court finds that Canyon Creek is not entitled to immunity under the PREP Act. Accordingly, Judge Cavan's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 29) are ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Canyon Creek's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is DENIED. DATED this / S'rday of March, 2023. lJSANP.WA TTERS United States District Judge 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
