AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

STATE OF OREGON, et al, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge

ORDER HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued a Findings & Recommendation [15] on March 30, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [6] be granted and this case be remanded to Oregon state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant has timely filed objections [17] 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 Defendant'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 Papak's Findings & Recommendation [15], and therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [6] is granted, and this case is remanded to the Multnomah County Circuit court where it was originally filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14 day of June, 2016.

/s/_________


MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ


United States District Judge

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Oregon v. Gen. Nutrition Corp.
(Jun 14, 2016)