Opinion
Civil No. 00-1468-AS
April 16, 2001
Bruce A. Rubin, Leah C. Lively, Peter C. Richter, William A. Masters, Miller, Nash, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Maryann Yelnosky, Allyson S. Krueger, Barran, Liebman, LLP, Portland, OR, Theodore M. Becker, Drew G. A. Peel, Jenkens Gilchrist, P.C., Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Defendants.
O R D E R
The Honorable Donald Ashmanskas, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on March 7, 2001. Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 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). The matter is before this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Donald Ashmanskas. This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation (#36) of Magistrate Judge Donald Ashmanskas in its entirety, except the court notes that this ruling moots the issue of whether the individual defendants can be compelled to arbitrate and declines to rule on that point.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Chrome's motion to dismiss (#14) is granted; the individual defendants' motion to dismiss (#12) is granted; and defendant Chrome's motion to compel arbitration and stay case (#16) is granted.