WFG National Title Insurance Company v. Bay et al, No. 3:2022cv01010 - Document 23 (D. Or. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead's F&R to which Plaintiff objected. Judge Armistead's F&R, ECF 17 , is adopted in full. This Court therefore DENIES Defendants Bay and Vulgas's Motion to Dismiss, ECF 5 , and Defendant Stewart Title Company's Motion for Joinder, ECF 7 . Any other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. Signed on 10/19/2023 by Judge Karin J. Immergut. (pjg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WFG National Title Insurance Company v. Bay et al Case 3:22-cv-01010-AR Doc. 23 Document 23 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:22-cv-01010-AR ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR JOINDER ZACH BAY, an individual, REBECCA VULGAS, an individual, and STEWART TITLE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendants. Steven F. Cade, Sussman Shank, LLP, 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400, Portland, OR 97205. Tyler J. Volm, Black Helterline, LLP, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 1900, Portland, OR 97205-3359. Attorneys for Plaintiff. Daniel DiCicco, 9040 SE Augustine Ct., Happy Valley, OR 97086-3014. Jose Cienfuegos, 100 Fires Law, 4500 Kruse Way, Suite 390, Lake Oswego, OR 97035. Attorneys for Defendants Zach Bay and Rebecca Vulgas. Bradley W. Anderson and Phillip J. Haberthur, Landerholm, PS, 805 Broadway, Suite 1000, Vancouver, WA 98660. Attorneys for Defendant Stewart Title Company. IMMERGUT, District Judge. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Plaintiff objected. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge Armistead’s F&R. PAGE 1 – ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-01010-AR Document 23 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2 STANDARDS Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), as amended, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R that are not objected to. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. CONCLUSION This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead’s F&R to which Defendants objected. Judge Armistead’s F&R, ECF 17, is adopted in full. This Court DENIES Defendants Bay and Vulgas’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 5, and Defendant Stewart Title Company’s Motion for Joinder, ECF 7. Any other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 19th day of October, 2023. /s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge PAGE 2 – 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.
