Blocker v. Bandmine.com et al, No. 3:2016cv01709 - Document 84 (D. Or. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING Judge Acosta's Amended Findings and Recommendation as my own opinion. Defendant eBay's Motion 8 to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend is GRANTED. Defendant Webnames' Motion 29 to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Blocker's claims against Bandmine are DISMISSED for lack of timely service. Defendant eBay's Motion for Sanctions 29 is DENIED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against Defendant Webnames within 30 days of the filing date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/26/17 by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman.(copy mailed to Tyrone Blocker) (peg)
Blocker v. Bandmine.com et al Doc. 84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TYRONE BLOCKER, No. 3:16-cv-1709-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. BANDMINE.COM, et al., Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On August 25, 207, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Reconnnendation ("F&R") , reconnnending GRANTING Defendant eBay, Inc's ("eBay") Motion to Dismiss  Plaintiff Tyrone Blocker's ("Blocker") First Amended Complaint1 with prejudice and without leave to amend, GRANTING Defendant Webnames CA Inc. 's ("Webnames") motion to dismiss  for failure to state a claim with leave to amend, and DISMISSING Blocker's claim against Bandmine.com ("Bandmine") for lack of timely service. Blocker filed objections and amended objections, which the Court accepted. Defendant Webnames responded to the objections, and Defendant eBay responded to the amended objections. 1 After the parties completed their briefmg on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Blocker filed a First Amended Complaint . In light of the Amended Complaint, Judge Acosta ordered Defendants to file supplemental briefs addressing to extent to which Plaintiffs amendments cured the defects asserted in Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, if at all. Defendants filed supplemental briefing. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only reeommendations 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 nova determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(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 JI 14, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny with which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objection<> 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)(l)(C). Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations and ADOPT the Amended Findings and Recommendation  as my own opinion. Defendant eBay's Motion to Dismiss  Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend is GRANTED. Defendant Webnames' Motion to Dismiss  for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. Blocker's claims against Bandmine are DISMISSED for lack of timely service. Defendant eBay's Motion for Sanctions  is DENIED. Plaintiff, however, is cautioned that any attempts to file amended complaints naming eBay as a defendant or to file subsequent lawsuits against eBay arising from the same transactional nucleus of facts may support a finding ofbad faith, exposing Blocker to sanctions under Section 1927, Rule 11, or the Court's inherent power to sanction. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against Defendant Webnames. Any amended complaint must remedy the jurisdit.'tional defects present in the Complaint and First Amended 2 ···· OPINION AND ORDER Complaint and allege suffieient faets to establish Blocker's interest in the intelleetual property at issue in his claims. Additionally, any amended complaint must be filed within thirty days of the date this order is filed. Failure to file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED day of September, 2017. MICHAEL W. MOSMAjN Chief United StatesJli;><fict Judge 3 - 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
Terms of Service