From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DTL Builders, Inc. v. RI KY Roofing & Sheet Metal, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
Mar 28, 2018
Case No. 6:17-cv-01592-JR (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 6:17-cv-01592-JR Case No. 6:17-cv-01251-JR

03-28-2018

DTL BUILDERS, INC., a Utah corporation, and THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, and an Ohio surety, Plaintiffs, v. RI KY ROOFING & SHEET METAL, LLC, Oregon limited liability company, Defendant.


ORDER

:

Magistrate Judge Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (doc, 20) on February 7, 2018. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Judge Russo recommended dismissing defendant DTL Builders' ("DTL") claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. DTL filed objections to the F&R on a single ground: it argues that Judge Russo's recommendation is moot because DTL has filed for leave to amend the good faith and fair dealing claim. The recommendation is not moot because Judge Russo has not granted DTL's motion for leave to amend and has stayed consideration of that motion pending my ruling on the F&R.

Although DTL's decision not to object to Judge Russo's F&R on the merits relieves me of my obligation to perform a de novo review, I retain the obligation to "make an informed, final determination." Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Magistrates Act does not specify a standard of review in cases in which no merits objections are filed. Ray v. Astrue, 2012 WL 1598239, *1 (D. Or. May 7, 2012). Following the recommendation of the Rules Advisory Committee, I review the F&R for "clear error on the face of the record[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (1983) (citing Campbell v. United States District Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 64 n.6 (2002) (stating that, "[i]n the absence of a clear legislative mandate, the Advisory Committee Notes provide a reliable source of insight into the meaning of a federal rule). Having reviewed the file of this case, I find no clear error.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that I adopt Judge Russo's F&R (doc. 20).

Dated this 28th day of March 2018.

/s/_________

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge


Summaries of

DTL Builders, Inc. v. RI KY Roofing & Sheet Metal, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION
Mar 28, 2018
Case No. 6:17-cv-01592-JR (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2018)
Case details for

DTL Builders, Inc. v. RI KY Roofing & Sheet Metal, LLC

Case Details

Full title:DTL BUILDERS, INC., a Utah corporation, and THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

Date published: Mar 28, 2018

Citations

Case No. 6:17-cv-01592-JR (D. Or. Mar. 28, 2018)

Citing Cases

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 48 v. Rosendin Elec.

Defendant also relies on Ri Ky Roofing & Sheet Metal, LLC v. DTL Builders, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01251-JR, 2018…