Quatama Park Townhomes Owners Ass'n v. RBC Real Estate Fin., Inc.

Decision Date18 March 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 3:18-cv-00023-SB
Citation365 F.Supp.3d 1129
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Oregon
Parties QUATAMA PARK TOWNHOMES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. RBC REAL ESTATE FINANCE, INC.; Lamplight Capital & Asset Management, LLC; Decatur Advisors LLC; Scott McFerran; Laura Wilson, and Daron Anderson, Defendants.

Michael J. Vial, Vial Fotheringham llp, 17355 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite A, Lake Oswego, OR 97035. Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Graham B. Miller and Ryan M. Tarter, Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman llp, 12755 SW 69th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97223. Of Attorneys for Defendants Scott McFerran, Laura Wilson, and Daron Anderson.

Kurt C. Peterson, Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick pc, 732 NW 19th Avenue, Portland, OR 97209. Of Attorneys for Defendants Decatur Advisors, LLC and Scott McFerran.

George S. Pitcher and David C. Campbell, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith llp, 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900, Portland, OR 97204. Of Attorneys for Defendants Decatur Advisors LLC and Scott McFerran.

Anne R. Beehler and Hal Mark Mersel, Bryan Cave llp, 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500, Irvine, CA 92612; Eric D. Lansverk and Joseph A.G. Sakay, Hillis Clark Martin And Peterson ps, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600, Seattle, WA 98104. Of Attorneys for Defendants RBC Real Estate Finance, Inc.

Klarice A. Benn, Abbott Law Group pc, 215 SW Washington Street, Suite 300, Portland, OR 97204. Of Attorneys for Defendant Lamplight Capital & Asset Management LLC.

OPINION AND ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

Plaintiff Quatama Park Townhomes Owners Association ("Association") brings this lawsuit (Quatama II ) against six defendants. Four defendants, Scott McFerran ("McFerran"), Laura Wilson ("Wilson"), Daron Anderson ("Anderson"), and Decatur Advisors LLC ("Decatur") (collectively, the "Moving Defendants"), move to disqualify the law firm of Vial Fotheringham LLP ("VF") from continuing to represent the Association in this action. In an Opinion and Order, United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman granted the motion to disqualify the Association's counsel, and the Association timely objected. After reviewing the record and hearing oral argument, the Court finds the Opinion and Order is contrary to law and denies the motion to disqualify.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Magistrates Act grants district courts the authority to delegate certain matters to magistrate judges. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In civil actions, a district court may designate a magistrate judge to determine any pretrial matter, except motions for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to permit or deny maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). For any of these excluded motions, a district judge may designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure implements the authority provided by the Federal Magistrates Act. Under Rule 72(a), a magistrate judge may "hear and decide" all referred pretrial matters that are "not dispositive of a party's claim or defense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). For pretrial matters referred to a magistrate judge that are dispositive of a claim or defense, in the absence of consent by all parties, Rule 72(b) allows the magistrate judge only to "enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1).

The terms "dispositive" and "nondispositive" in Rule 72 do not perfectly coincide with the categories listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For example, a magistrate judge may not issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, even though such orders are not dispositive. The Ninth Circuit has held that the motions excluded from determination by a magistrate judge under § 636(b)(1)(A)"are not an exhaustive list of all the pretrial matters that are excepted from the magistrate judge's authority." United States v. Rivera-Guerrero , 377 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004). As explained by the Ninth Circuit, "magistrate judges may hear and determine nondispositive matters, but not dispositive matters[.]" Mitchell v. Valenzuela , 791 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015). Dispositive matters include those expressly listed in § 636(b)(1)(A), as well as "analogous" matters. Id. "To determine whether a motion is dispositive, [the Ninth Circuit has] adopted a functional approach that looks to the effect of the motion, in order to determine whether it is properly characterized as dispositive or nondispositive of a claim or defense of a party." Id. at 1168-69.

The distinction between a dispositive motion and a nondispositive matter is significant for the standard of review. When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations concerning a dispositive motion, the district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's determination of a nondispositive matter, however, the district judge may reject that determination only when it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

"To the extent a district judge is concerned about the possibility that assigning a nondispositive matter to a magistrate judge will confine his or her power to revise the outcome, a reference directing the magistrate judge to make recommendations is possible." 12 Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, et al. , Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 3069 (3d ed. 2018) ("Wright & Miller "). As explained by one district court,

That certain case dispositive matters must always be referred for recommendations rather than determination does not mandate the converse, i.e. , that nondispositive matters must always be referred for determination rather than recommendations. It is evident from the [Federal Magistrates] Act's legislative history that the purpose of the Act's referral and review provisions is to define the limits of the powers which a court may allow a magistrate to exercise, not to restrict the ultimate authority of an Article III court over a case pending before it.

Delco Wire & Cable, Inc. v. Weinberger , 109 F.R.D. 680, 685 (E.D. Pa. 1986), quoted in Wright & Miller , supra , § 3069. "Thus, when a district court judge refers a nondispositive matter to a magistrate judge specifically for recommendation—even though the matter could have been referred for determination—review is plenary ...." Howe Inv., Ltd. v. Perez Y Cia. de Puerto Rico, Inc. , 96 F.Supp.2d 106, 113 (D. P.R. 2000) ; see also Trone v. Smith , 621 F.2d 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that the magistrate judge only "recommended" that a motion to disqualify counsel be denied, which the district court then reviewed de novo ).

In the pending lawsuit, the Association urges the Court to treat Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Opinion and Order as findings and recommendations on a dispositive matter and, thus, provide de novo review. Defendants, however, argue that a motion to disqualify counsel is a nondispositive matter and that the Magistrate Judge's decision should only be rejected if its factual findings are clearly erroneous or its conclusions are contrary to law. The Court agrees with Defendants. If the Magistrate Judge's decision is upheld, the Association may continue to prosecute all of its claims against each of the Defendants, after obtaining new counsel. Thus, there is nothing in the pending motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel that is analogous to any of the motions expressly identified in § 636(b)(1)(A). See also Howe Inv., Ltd. , 96 F.Supp.2d at 113 (holding that a motion to disqualify is a nondispositive matter that a magistrate judge may determine unless the district court referred the matter only for a report and recommendation). Accordingly, the Court will evaluate the Magistrate Judge's factual findings to determine if any are clearly erroneous. More relevant to the pending dispute, however, the Court also will evaluate the Magistrate Judge's legal conclusions to determine if any are contrary to law, which involves a de novo review of those issues.1

BACKGROUND

A company owned by James Standring ("Standring") developed a planned residential community in Washington County, Oregon known as "Quatama Park Townhomes" ("Quatama Park"). Other companies owned by Standring provided construction and other services for Quatama Park. The construction lender was RBC Real Estate Finance, Inc. ("RBC"). In 2011, RBC foreclosed on the Quatama Park project and became the successor declarant for that development. RBC then hired Decatur to manage the completion of the development.

Wilson and Anderson worked for Decatur. RBC appointed Wilson and Anderson as the sole members of the Association's Board of Directors (the "Board") until control of Quatama Park would be turned over to the lot owners. In July 2013, Lamplight Capital & Asset Management, LLC ("Lamplight") purchased RBC's interest in the project. Lamplight reappointed Wilson and Anderson as the Association's sole directors.

In July 2015, the Board hired VF to provide legal services to the Association as outside general counsel. VF's representation agreement was addressed to the Board, which then consisted of only Wilson and Anderson. There were no other officers or managers of the Association, whose activities were solely directed by Wilson and Anderson. Wilson signed VF's representation agreement as the "Authorized Representative" of the Association. In August 2015, Anderson resigned from the Board, and Lamplight appointed McFerran to replace him. McFerran also worked for Decatur.

In November 2015,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Arnold v. Loancare, LLC, 1:20-cv-00189-NONE-EPG
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 1 Febrero 2021
    ...judge's order denying motion to disqualify counsel was not an abuse of discretion); Quatama Park Townhomes Owners Ass'n v. RBC Real Estate Fin., Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1133 (D. Or. 2019) (finding magistrate's order denying motion to disqualify is a non-dispositive ...
  • Rosas v. Geico Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 19 Marzo 2019
    ... ... Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. , 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). Legal ... ...
  • Covelli v. Avamere Home Health Care LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 25 Marzo 2021
    ...to determine if any are contrary to law, which involves a de novo review of those issues." Quatama Park Townhomes Owners Ass'n v. RBC Real Est. Fin., Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 1129, 1133 (D. Or. 2019); see also id. at 1141-42.B. Motion to Dismiss A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim......
  • Dr. Erik Natkin, D.O., P.C. v. Am. Osteopathic Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 1 Septiembre 2022
    ...of those issues.” Quatama Park Townhomes Owners Ass'n v. RBC Real Est. Fin., Inc., 365 F.Supp.3d 1129, 1133 (D. Or. 2019); see also id. at 1141-42. Judge Beckerman resolved the informal discovery disputes sent by emails to her chambers without formal motion practice. Thus, there are some fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT