From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cit Bank v. Estate of Marrazzo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
May 8, 2018
No. 3:17-cv-1948-YY (D. Or. May. 8, 2018)

Opinion

No. 3:17-cv-1948-YY

05-08-2018

CIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ESTATE OF SHARI S. MARRAZZO; THE UNKNOWN HEIRS, DEVISEES, AND ASSIGNEES OF SHARI S. MARRAZZO; ANDREA L. RYUN, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and ALL OTHER PERSONS OR PARTIES UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY RIGHT, TITLE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 3435 SW COLUMBIA DR, MADRAS, OR 97741, Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, J.,

On April 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [25], recommending the Motion to Remand to State Court [14] should be GRANTED and this action should be remanded to Jefferson County Circuit Court, but that Defendants' request for costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, should be DENIED. No objections were filed.

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 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)(1)(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 F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [25] as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Remand to State Court [14] is GRANTED and this action is REMANDED to Jefferson County Circuit Court. Defendants' request for costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2018.

/s/_________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cit Bank v. Estate of Marrazzo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
May 8, 2018
No. 3:17-cv-1948-YY (D. Or. May. 8, 2018)
Case details for

Cit Bank v. Estate of Marrazzo

Case Details

Full title:CIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ESTATE OF SHARI S. MARRAZZO; THE UNKNOWN…

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

Date published: May 8, 2018

Citations

No. 3:17-cv-1948-YY (D. Or. May. 8, 2018)

Citing Cases

Sunny Acre, LLC v. Meinhardt

, state and federal laws unequivocally prohibit removal under the circumstances of this case. See CIT Bank,…

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. v. Ramirez

As Khan points out, state and federal laws unequivocally prohibit removal under the circumstances of this…