Boyds Coffee Company v. Cowboy Boyd's, LLC

Full title: BOYDS COFFEE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. COWBOY BOYD'S, LLC, a Missouri Limited…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Sep 30, 2008

Civil No. 07-1516-HU (D. Or. Sep. 30, 2008)

Opinion

Civil No. 07-1516-HU.

September 30, 2008

Peter E. Heuser, Elizabeth Hartwell, PC, KOLISCH HARTWELL, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Annette P. Heller, HELLER ASSOCIATES, Town County, MO, Mary Ellen Page Farr, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT JONES, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Dennis James Hubel filed Amended Findings and Recommendation (#52) on July 14, 2008, 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). 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).

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 Amended Findings and Recommendation (#52) dated July 14, 2008, in its entirety. Defendant's motion (#14) to dismiss or in the alternative to transfer venue is DENIED. Boyd's motion (#40) for leave to supplement its complaint is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.