KAISER v. CASCADE CAPITAL LLC

No. 3:16-cv-00744-AC.

MICHAEL KAISER and MARGARET J. LOEWEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CASCADE CAPITAL LLC and GORDON AYLWORTH & TAMI PC, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Nature of Suit: 480 Consumer Credit
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael Kaiser, Plaintiff, represented by Bret A. Knewtson , Attorney at Law.

Michael Kaiser, Plaintiff, represented by John M. Gear , John Gear Law Office LLC & Mark G. Passannante , Broer & Passannante, PS.

Margaret J. Loewen, Plaintiff, represented by Bret A. Knewtson , Attorney at Law, John M. Gear , John Gear Law Office LLC & Mark G. Passannante , Broer & Passannante, PS.

Cascade Capital LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter D. Eidenberg , Keating Jones Hughes, P.C. & Kelly Frances Huedepohl , Keating Jones Hughes, P.C..

Gordon Aylworth & Tami PC, Defendant, represented by Peter D. Eidenberg , Keating Jones Hughes, P.C. & Kelly Frances Huedepohl , Keating Jones Hughes, P.C..


OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, Chief District Judge.

On March 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued his Findings and Recommendation ("F&R") [56], recommending that Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration [16] should be GRANTED. Mr. Kaiser objected [63], and Defendants responded [70].

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 novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court is not required to review, de novo 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 with 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)(1)(C).

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Acosta's recommendations and ADOPT the F&R [56] as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration [16] is GRANTED as to the question of whether the arbitration agreement encompasses FDCPA claims. Mr. Kaiser's claims against Defendants are STAYED pending the arbitrator's decision on whether Mr. Kaisier's FDCPA claim is subject to arbitration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases