de Borja et al v. Razon et al, No. 3:2018cv01131 - Document 90 (D. Or. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge You's order and I DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Defendants' Legal Expert 49 ; I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 27 under the doctrine of forum non conveniens; and I DENY all remaining motions as moot ( 31 , 35 , 47 , 48 ). This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 9/25/2019 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pvh)

Download PDF
de Borja et al v. Razon et al Doc. 90 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PATRICK R. DE BORJA and MAKILING FARMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:18-cv-01131-YY ENRIQUE R. RAZON, JR; INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.; ICTSI OREGON, INC.; and JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES 1-20. OPINION AND ORDER Defendant. MOSMAN,J., On August 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendations ("F&R") [83], directing that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Defendants' Legal Expert [49] should be DENIED; that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [27] should be GRANTED under the doctrine offorum non conveniens; that all remaining motions should be DENIED as moot [31, 35, 47, 48]; and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff objected [88], and Defendant filed a response [89]. 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 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 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)(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 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the order depends on whether objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge You' s order and I DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Defendants' Legal Expert [49]; I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [27] under the doctrine offorum non conveniens; and I DENY all remaining motions as moot [31, 35, 47, 48]. 1 This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. <]/~- DATED this _e,_:7_ day of September, 2019. MICHAEL W. OSMAN ChiefUnitelStates District Judge 1 The comt laments that, in light of the facts of this case, the court's wholesale acceptance of Judge You's F &R requires the comt to forgo writing an opinion that references both Imelda Marcos and International Shoe. See, "Imelda Marcos," Wikipedia.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imelda_Marcos); International Shoe Co v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). 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.