Giulio v. BV Centercal, LLC et al, No. 3:2009cv00481 - Document 102 (D. Or. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations ( 99 and 100 ). Accordingly, Defendants motions for summary judgment ( 29 , 33 and 40 ) are GRANTED. See 3-page order attached. Signed on 9/6/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

Download PDF
Giulio v. BV Centercal, LLC et al Doc. 102 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JEFFREY GIULIO, individually; and JEFFREY GIULIO, a conservator of the estate of T.G., a minor child, Plaintiff, No. CV. 09-481-AC 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. Susan K. Lain HOHBACH LAW FIRM, LLC 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 2 Suite 340 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 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. #99) on August 3, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the motions for summary judgment (doc. #29 and #33) filed by CenterCal Properties, LLC and BV CenterCal, LLC, respectively. The Magistrate Judge also issued a Findings and Recommendation (doc. #100) the same day, August 2 - ORDER 3, 2011, in which he recommends that I grant the motion for summary judgments (doc. #40) filed by IPC International Corporation. 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. #99 and #100). Accordingly, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (doc. #29, #33, and #40) are GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 6th day of September, 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.