Infusion Partners LLC v. Otono Networks, Inc. et al, No. 3:2016cv02288 - Document 29 (D. Or. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - ADOPTING Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation 27 which recommended GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 14 as my own opinion. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of person jurisdiction. Plaintiff's request for additional discovery is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9th day of May, 2017, by Chief United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (peg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Infusion Partners LLC v. Otono Networks, Inc. et al Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION INFUSION PARTNERS, No. 3:16-cv-02288-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. OTONO NETWORKS, INC., and EMIR ABOULHOSN, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On April 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) [27], recommending that I GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [14] for lack of personal jurisdiction. He also recommended that I DENY Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery. Neither party objected to the F&R. 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 Acosta’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [27] as my own opinion. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s request for additional discovery is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9th DATED this _____ day of May, 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.
