POTTER v. CROSSWHITE, 09-814-PK. (2011)
Court: District Court, D. Oregon
Number: infdco20110113720
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 10, 2011
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2011
Summary: ORDER GARR M. KING, District Judge. The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on December 2, 2010. Both Potter and Crosswhite filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). This court has, therefore, given de novo review o
Summary: ORDER GARR M. KING, District Judge. The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on December 2, 2010. Both Potter and Crosswhite filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation. When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of..
More
ORDER
GARR M. KING, District Judge.
The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on December 2, 2010. Both Potter and Crosswhite filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Papak.
This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Papak (#58) dated December 2, 2010 in its entirety. The court accepts Potter's clarifications to the record: (1) the plaintiff is Mark Potter, acting as trustee of sixteen irrevocable life insurance busts, not the trusts themselves; and (2) the $550,000 transferred by defendant in January of 2007 was ultimately received and held in trust by Potter until its residue was deposited with the court following the filing of a complaint for interpleader in Potter v. Cavaletto, CV 10-124-ST.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Crosswhite's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (#35) is denied and that Potter is awarded his attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred in connection with his opposition to Crosswhite's withdrawn Motion for Imposition of Sanctions (#42).
Source: Leagle
