Daugherty v. Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC, No. 3:2018cv00298 - Document 25 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 19 as my own opinion. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 5 is DENIED on claims one, four, and five, and GRANTED on claim three. Signed on 1/23/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)

Download PDF
Daugherty v. Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KENNETH DAUGHERTY, Plaintiff, No. 3:18-cv-00298-AC v. OPINION AND ORDER PRESIDIO NETWORKED SOLUTIONS GROUP,LLC, Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [19], recommending that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [5] be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff filed Objections to the F&R [23] and Defendant filed a Response to Objections [24]. DISCUSSION The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the comi, 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 comi is generally required to 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com make a de novo dete1mination regarding those portions of the report 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 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)(l)(C). Plaintiff sues for wrongful te1mination, unpaid wages, commission, and stocks. The F &R recommends that I grant in paii and deny in paii Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs first, third, fomih, and fifth claims for relief. Specifically, it recommends that I grant the Motion to Dismiss claim three (wrongful discharge) but deny the Motion to Dismiss as to the remaining claims. Defendant objects. It argues that while claim one rests on an alleged breach of the express terms of the Plan, claim four rests on alleged violations of Oregon common law-the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant fu1iher argues that Judge Acosta improperly blended together his analysis of these two claims. Defendant's argument is that if one focuses on the express terms of the Plan, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in claim one. I disagree. The F &R properly focuses on the allegations in the Complaint in which there were allegations of failures to pay. Defendant's argument depends on some of these failures, involving commissions for example, being completely discretionary and therefore not violating any express contractual term. While it seems con-ect that non payment of completely discretionary payments may not violate any express contractual teims, it is not at all clear 2 - OPINION AND ORDER whether the disputed non payments should be so categorized. More fundamentally, the Complaint adequately alleges otherwise. CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [19] as my own opinion. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [5] is DENIED on claims one, four, and five, and GRANTED on claim three. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 25 day of January, 2019. 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 Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.