Whitworth v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc. et al
| Leslie M. Whitworth |
| National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Russ Doe and Michelle Doe |
| 3:2008cv00968 |
| August 19, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland Office |
| Multnomah |
| Paul Papak |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
69
ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation 67 . Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees 53 is Granted. Defendants are ordered to pay Plaintiff's attorney fees in the amount of $30,460.50, and his costs of $415.00. Signed on 5/11/10 by Judge Garr M. King. (gm)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER OF DISMISSAL signed on 12/16/09 by Judge Garr M. King as follows: ORDERED that the plaintiff's claims against defendant should be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE subject to the following; and it is further 1) ORDERED that Pl aintiff shall move for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney fees on or before 12/23/09. 2) National's objections shall be filed with the Court on or before 1/13/10. 3) Whitworth's reply brief shall be filed with the Court on or before 2/3/10. 4) Before entry of judgment on the award, National shall have 14 days to pay Whitworth based on Order of the Court. (mr)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER: The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on August 12, 2009. Defendants filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistr ate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. neb) ; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Papak. Thi s court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Papak (# 42 ) dated August 12,2009 in its entirety. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (# 30 ) is denied. Signed on September 9, 2009 by Judge Garr M. King. (eo)
|
|
Filing
42
Findings & Recommendation: Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 30 should be denied. These Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 8/26/2009 . If no objections m'e filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a response is due within 10 days after being served with a copy ofthe objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement. Signed on 8/12/09 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER: The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on February 17,2009. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been time ly filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Coro. v. Goto & Co., Ltd.. 700 F.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); See also Britt V. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (# 23 ). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 7 ) is DENIED. Signed on March 5, 2009 by Judge Garr M. King. (eo)
|
|
Filing
23
Findings & Recommendation: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 7 should be denied. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 3/3/2009. Response to Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 3/17/2009. Signed on 2/17/09 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
