Philin Corporation v. Westhood, Inc.

Full title: PHILIN CORPORATION, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. WESTHOOD…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Dec 4, 2006

Civil No. 04-1228-HU (D. Or. Dec. 4, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 04-1228-HU.

December 4, 2006

Brent M. Finch, John S. Cha, Tim G. Ceperley, STONE ROSENBLATT CHA, PLC, Woodland Hills, CA, Helen C. Tompkins, LAW OFFICE OF HELEN TOMPKINS, Portland, OR, John S. Stone, JOHN S. STONE, LLC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Joel A. Mullin, Beverly C. Pearman, STOEL RIVES, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT JONES, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Hubel filed findings and Recommendation (# 113) on September 12, 2006, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).¹ When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

1 Although neither party has addressed this court's standard of review of a Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations on a Rule 37 motion for sanctions, courts have construed Rule 37 motions for sanctions, such as the one at issue here, as dispositive motions subject to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). See Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 509-10 (6th Cir. 1993); see also the discussion of dispositive v. nondispositive motions in Vogel v. U.S. Office Products Co., 258 F.3d 509, 514-15 (6th Cir. 2001).

Defendant has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Hubel's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (# 113) dated September 12, 2006, in its entirety. Defendant's motion for sanctions (# 69) is granted in part and denied in part as follows. Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendant's motion for attorney fees is GRANTED in the sum of $1,198.50.

IT IS SO ORDERED.