Kamana O'Kala, LLC v. Lite Solar, LLC et al, No. 3:2016cv01532 - Document 45 (D. Or. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 36 . Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 9 is Granted and Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue 14 is Denied as Moot. The action should be Remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. Signed on 3/22/17 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gm)

Download PDF
Kamana O'Kala, LLC v. Lite Solar, LLC et al Doc. 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KAMANA O’KALA, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01532-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. LITE SOLAR, LLC, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On February 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [36], recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [9] should be GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue [14] should be DENIED as moot. Defendants filed objections [39] and Plaintiff filed a response [43]. 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 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 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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 careful review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendations and ADOPT the F&R [36] as my own opinion. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [9] is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue [14] is DENIED as moot. The action should be REMANDED to the Multnomah County Circuit Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 22nd day of March, 2017. /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.