Opinion
02-CV-1426-JE.
January 25, 2007
MARC E. GRIFFIN, Griffin McCandlish, Portland, OR, WILLIAM D. BRANDT, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff s. JEFFREY D. AUSTIN, J. MICHAEL PORTER, Miller Nash LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (#62) on October 31, 2006, in which he recommended the Court deny Defendants' Motion to Strike (#44). Defendants filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 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). See also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
On de novo review, the Court notes the Tolling Agreement between the parties is ambiguous as to whether, after the case was reversed on appeal and remanded by the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiffs were required to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) before filing an Amended Complaint in the district court. It is clear from the record that the parties intended to agree to Plaintiffs' amendment of their Complaint if the Judgment of the district court was reversed. If Plaintiffs had requested leave from the Court to file an Amended Complaint after the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded this matter to the district court, the Court would have granted their request.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Findings and Recommendation (#62) and, accordingly, DENIES Defendants' Motion to Strike (#44).
IT IS SO ORDERED.