Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc. et al, No. 3:2014cv01528 - Document 259 (D. Or. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Russos recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 246 as my own opinion. Mr. Makaneoles Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint 230 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Mr. Makaneole m ay amend his complaint with respect to his ORS Chapter 652 claims but may not amend with respect to his Chapter 653 claims. The amended complaint is due fourteen days from the date of this order Signed on 9/23/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Makaneole v. Solarworld Industries America, Inc. et al Doc. 259 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MICHAEL MAKANEOLE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. Plaintiff, SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, INC.; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES AMERICA, LP; SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES SERVICES, LLC; SOLARWORLD POWER PROJECTS, INC.; RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS US, LP; and KELLY SERVICES, INC., No. 3:14-cv-1528-JR OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. MOSMAN, J., On June 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued her Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [246], recommending that Plaintiff Michael Makaneole’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint [230] be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants SolarWorld Industries America, Inc., SolarWorld Industries America, LP, SolarWorld Industries Services, LLC, and SolarWorld Power Projects, Inc. filed an objection [252], to which Mr. Makaneole responded [255]. 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, 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions 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 scrutiny 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 part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I agree with Judge Russo’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [246] as my own opinion. Mr. Makaneole’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint [230] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Mr. Makaneole may amend his complaint with respect to his ORS Chapter 652 claims but may not amend with respect to his Chapter 653 claims. The amended complaint is due fourteen days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 23rd day of September, 2019. ___________________________ 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.
