From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wickenkamp v. AC3, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 16, 2015
No. 3:14-cv-01646-PK (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2015)

Opinion

No. 3:14-cv-01646-PK

11-16-2015

MARY WICKENKAMP, Plaintiff, v. AC3, INC.; MARILYN PRESTON SUAREZ; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; BRUCE HAMPTON; VENESE HAMPTON; SCOTT HAMPTON; CHARLES WIKSTROM; RAHN HOSTETTER; JONEL RICKER; JODI RIGGS; BILL BUSHLEN; GENERAL LAND OFFICE; CHARLENE WIKSTROM; Defendants.


ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [65] on September 28, 2015, in which he recommends that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant First American Title Company's motion [41] to dismiss and request for judicial notice, and Defendants AC3, Inc.'s and Marilyn Suarez's motion [44] to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any 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 other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings & Recommendation [65]. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the record, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant First American Title Company's motion [41] to dismiss and request for judicial notice, and Defendants AC3, Inc.'s and Marilyn Suarez's motion [44] to dismiss for failure to state a claim. All of plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not granted leave to amend because the defect in her standing to pursue her claims is not subject to cure by amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16 day of November, 2015.

/s/_________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Wickenkamp v. AC3, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 16, 2015
No. 3:14-cv-01646-PK (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Wickenkamp v. AC3, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARY WICKENKAMP, Plaintiff, v. AC3, INC.; MARILYN PRESTON SUAREZ; FIRST…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Nov 16, 2015

Citations

No. 3:14-cv-01646-PK (D. Or. Nov. 16, 2015)