From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Cole

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 28, 2006
05-CV-372-AS (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2006)

Opinion

05-CV-372-AS.

April 28, 2006

PAUL T. FORTINO, THOMAS R. JOHNSON, STEPHANIE K. HINES, Portland, OR, JAY GOFFMAN, Skadden Arps Meagher Flom, LLP, Four Times Square, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

JAN K. KITCHEL, Schwabe Williamson Wyatt, PC, Portland, OR, MARTIN H. KAPLAN, BRIAN D. GRAIFMAN, Gusrae Kaplan Bruno Nusbaum, PLLC, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Carson Cole.

TIMOTHY S. DEJONG, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants DebtTraders, Inc.; DebtTraders Group, Inc.; and DebtTraders, Ltd.


ORDER


Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas issued an Opinion and Order (#48) on March 2, 2006, in which he granted Defendant Carson Cole's Motion to Disqualify Counsel (#34). Defendant Cole has requested review of Magistrate Judge Askmanskas's ruling.

"Pretrial orders of a magistrate judge under § 636(b)(1)(A) are reviewable under the `clearly erroneous and contrary to law' standard; they are not subject to de novo determination as are a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations under '636(b)(1)(B)." Merritt v. Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1017 (5th Cir. 1981) ( per curiam). Accord United States v. Saunders, 641 F.2d 659, 663-64 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1980).

Defendant Cole has not demonstrated the Opinion and Order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court adheres to Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas's March 2, 2006, Opinion and Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Cole

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 28, 2006
05-CV-372-AS (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Smith v. Cole

Case Details

Full title:DELFORD M. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CARSON COLE; DEBTTRADERS, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 28, 2006

Citations

05-CV-372-AS (D. Or. Apr. 28, 2006)

Citing Cases

Evraz Inc. v. Riddell Williams P.S.

Because of the potential for tactical use of disqualification, however, courts have established a "high…

Besang, Inc. v. Intel Corp.

If the motion for disqualification is based on a conflict of interest, “any doubts must be resolved in favor…