Palazzo Vintage Homes, LLC et al v. Urban Housing Development, LLC et al, No. 3:2009cv01005 - Document 120 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Jelderks' Findings and Recommendation (doc. 118) as my own opinion. I GRANT defendants' request to recover costs in the amount of $1,151.92 (doc. 111), and DENY defendants' request for attorney fees (doc. 108). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 04/20/2011 by Judge James A. Redden. (pvh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION PALAZZO VINTAGE HOMES, LLC, an Oregon company, and PALAZZO VINTAGE REPRODUCTION HOMES, LLC, an Oregon company, CV 09-1 005-JE OPINION AND ORDER . Plaintiffs, v. URBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Oregon company, CONCEPT DESIGN AND ASSOCIATES, an Oregon business, STEWARDSHIP REALTY, LLC, an Oregon company, and VLADIMIR OZERUGA, an individual, Defendants. REDDEN, Judge: On March 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge John Je1derks filed his Findings and PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Recommendation (doc. 118) that the court grant defendants' request for costs in the amount of $1,151.92, but deny their request for attorney fees under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The matter is now before me. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party timely filed objections. This relieves me of my obligation to review Magistrate Judge Jelderks' factual findings de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C); see also Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140,149-50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Je1derks' Findings and Recommendation (doc. 118) as my own opinion. I GRANT defendants' request to recover costs in the amount of $1,151.92 (doc. 111), and DENY defendants' request for attorney fees (doc. 108). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2 Dday of April, 2011. U .ted States District Judge PAGE 2 - OPINION AND 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.