Thames v. City of Portland

Full title: DONNA THAMES and COLUMBIA BAR & GRILL INC., an Oregon Corporation, dba…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 7, 2018

No. 3:16-CV-01634-PK (D. Or. Jun. 7, 2018)

Opinion

No. 3:16-CV-01634-PK

06-07-2018

DONNA THAMES and COLUMBIA BAR & GRILL INC., an Oregon Corporation, dba EXOTICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; STEVEN MARKS, JOHN ECKHART; DAVID LUSTER; JEFFREY BELL; SHANNON HOFFEDITZ; DAN MCNEAL; MIKE BOYER; MERLE LINDSEY; MARK KRUGER; and JASON TALLMADGE, Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge

ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [93] on March 6, 2018, in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Strike [72] filed by Defendants Eckhart, Hoffeditz, Lindsey, Marks, McNeal, and Tallmadge ("OLCC Defendants"), deny the Motion to Dismiss [72] filed by OLCC Defendants, and deny the Motion to Dismiss [74] filed by Defendants Kruger and Boyer ("City Defendants"). The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. City Def. Obj., ECF 98; OLCC Def. Obj., ECF 97. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

The Court has carefully considered Defendants' objections and concludes there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation [93]. OLCC Defendants' Motion to Strike [72] is denied to the extent that it addresses ¶ 44. Otherwise, the Motion to Strike is granted. OLCC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [72] is denied. City Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [74] is also denied. Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint consistent with Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation regarding OLCC Defendants' Motion to Strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7 day of June, 2018.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge