National Payment Systems LLC v. BSR Acquisition Company LLC et al, No. 3:2020cv00983 - Document 45 (D. Or. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F. & R. (ECF 41 ) as my own opinion. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (ECF 15 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney fees and costs is DENIED and this case is remanded to Multnomah County Circuit Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 11/10/2020 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
National Payment Systems LLC v. BSR Acquisition Company LLC et al Doc. 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION NATIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS LLC, Plaintiff, No. 3 :20-cv-00983-SB V. OPINION AND ORDER BSR ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC and AURORA SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On October 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and Recommendation (F. & R.) [ECF 41]. Judge Beckerman recommended that I GRANT IN PART Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [ECF 15], remand the case to Multnomah County Circuit Court, and DENY Plaintiffs request for an award of attorney fees and costs. No objections were filed, but Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Court [ECF 43] asking to withdraw its pending fee request and seeking an immediate order of remand. Defendants filed a letter in response objecting to Plaintiffs request. [ECF 44]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman and I decline to accept Plaintiffs offer to withdraw its fee request. 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com DISCUSSION 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 make a de nova determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de nova or under 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 part of the F. & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). CONCLUSION Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman's recommendation and I ADOPT the F. & R. [ECF 41] as my own opinion. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [ECF 15] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs request for an award of attorney fees and costs is DENIED and this case is remanded to Multnomah County Circuit Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. I ,1<LJ,,DATED this ----f----!!- day of November, 2020. 0 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
