Too Marker Products, Inc. et al v. Shinhan Art Materials, Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv01013 - Document 140 (D. Or. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I ADOPT Judge Papaks F&R (#131) as my own and I DENY defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 49 , plaintiffs Motion to Strike 78 , and plaintiffs Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 81 . Signed on 11/17/2010 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Too Marker Products, Inc. et al v. Shinhan Art Materials, Inc. et al Doc. 140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TOO MARKER PRODUCTS, INC. a Japanese corporation, and IMAGINATION INTERNATIONAL, INC., an Oregon corporation, Plaintiffs, No. CV 09-1013-PK v. OPINION AND ORDER SHINHAN ART MATERIALS, INC., a Korean corporation, SHINHAN USA, C2F, INC., an Oregon corporation, and BONGKEUN HAN, an individual, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., On October 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Papak issued Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") (#131) in the above-captioned case recommending that I deny defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#49), plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#78), and plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#81). Defendants filed objections (#137) and plaintiffs responded (#139). STANDARD OF REVIEW The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 1 Dockets.Justia.com make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review, I ADOPT Judge Papak’s F&R (#131) as my own and I DENY defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#49), plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#78), and plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#81). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of November, 2010. /s/ Michael W. Mosman MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Court 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
