Baldin et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al, No. 3:2012cv00648 - Document 223 (D. Or. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 219 as my own opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 24th day of May, 2016, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman (peg)

Download PDF
Baldin et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 223 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION AMY BALDIN, an individual and as sole manager of LUGANO PROPERTIES 4, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, No. 3:12-cv-00648-AC v. OPINION AND ORDER WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a National Bank registered to do business in Oregon; and WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, a division of WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants. On April 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation [219], recommending Wells Fargo’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [205] should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Judge Acosta recommends awarding Wells Fargo attorney fees in the amount of $45,504.20 and costs in the amount of $2,599.55. Plaintiff objected in part [221], and Defendant responded [222]. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com make a de novo detennination regarding those portions of the repo1i or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l )(C). However, the comi is not required to review, de novo or under any other stan dard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those po1iions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S . 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrntiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any paii of the F&R. 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [219] as my own op1mon. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this .l!..._ day of May, 2016. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge 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.