Giulio v. BV CenterCal, LLC et al, No. 3:2009cv00482 - Document 83 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations (doc. 80 and 81 ). Accordingly, Defendants' motions for summary judgment (doc. 20 , 24 and 31 ) are GRANTED. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 8/31/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Giulio v. BV CenterCal, LLC et al Doc. 83 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KERI GIULIO, No. CV. 09-482-AC Plaintiff, ORDER v. BV CENTERCAL, LLC, a Delaware corporation; CENTERCAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; IPC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, CITY OF TUALATIN, a municipal corporation; and BRAD KING, an individual, Defendants. John E. Gutbezahl JOHN E. GUTBEZAHL LLC 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 1220 Portland, OR 97205 Attorney for Plaintiff /// 1 - ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Wm Kelly Olson MITCHELL LANG & SMITH 2000 One Main Place 101 SW Main Street Portland, OR 97204-3230 Attorney for Defendant BV CenterCal, LLC Steven A. Kraemer Mark C. Sherman HOFFMAN HART & WAGNER, LLP 1000 SW Broadway 20th Floor Portland, OR 97205 Attorneys for Defendant CenterCal Properties, LLC Lee S. Aronson SCHULTE ANDERSON DOWNES ARONSON BITTNER, PC 811 SW Naito Parkway Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204-3379 Attorney for Defendant IPC International Corporation David C. Lewis MILLER & WAGNER, LLP 2210 NW Flanders Street Portland, OR 97210 Attorney for Defendants City of Tualatin, Oregon and Brad King HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #80) on August 10, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the amended motion for summary judgment (doc. #31) filed by IPC International Corporation. The Magistrate Judge also issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #81) the same day, August 10, 2011, in which he 2 - ORDER recommends that I grant the motions for summary judgments (doc. #20 and #24) filed by CenterCal Properties and BV CenterCal, LLC, respectively. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations were timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. CONCLUSION The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations (doc. #80 and #81). Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (doc. #20, #24, and #31) are GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 31st day of August, 2011. /s/ Marco A. Hernandez Marco A. Hernandez United States District Judge 3 - ORDER
]]>
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.
