From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McIntire v. Sage Software, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Dec 17, 2015
No. 3:15-cv-00769-JE (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2015)

Opinion

No. 3:15-cv-00769-JE

12-17-2015

MARY MCINTIRE, Plaintiff, v. SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., a foreign business corporation, and MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC., a foreign business corporation, Defendants.

Benjamin Rosenthal 1023 SW Yamhill St., Ste. 200 Portland, OR 97205 Attorney for Plaintiff Kelly S. Riggs Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C. 222 SW Columbia St., Ste. 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Attorney for Defendant Matrix


ORDER Benjamin Rosenthal
1023 SW Yamhill St., Ste. 200
Portland, OR 97205

Attorney for Plaintiff // // Kelly S. Riggs
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart P.C.
222 SW Columbia St., Ste. 1500
Portland, OR 97201

Attorney for Defendant Matrix HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued a Findings & Recommendation [34] on September 28, 2015, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendant Matrix's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has timely filed objections [37] to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report.28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. // // // // //

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks' Findings & Recommendation [34], and therefore, Defendant Matrix's motion to dismiss [26] is granted. Plaintiff's Fourth Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice, and Defendant Matrix is dismissed. All other outstanding motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 17 day of December, 2015.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

McIntire v. Sage Software, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Dec 17, 2015
No. 3:15-cv-00769-JE (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2015)
Case details for

McIntire v. Sage Software, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARY MCINTIRE, Plaintiff, v. SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., a foreign business…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Dec 17, 2015

Citations

No. 3:15-cv-00769-JE (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2015)

Citing Cases

Jacobe v. Specialty Polymers, Inc.

To be sure, Oregon District Courts over the past decade have consistently held that paragraph (1)(g) applies…

Crites-Bachert v. Providence Health & Servs. - Or.

, report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:15-CV-00769-JE, 2015 WL 9272884 (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2015)…