# Coates v. Legacy Health

> District Court, D. Oregon · March 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10397185

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Oregon
- **Decided:** March 19, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10397185

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the district court's discretion to consider new arguments raised in objections
- rejecting the Fourth Circuit's requirement that a district court must consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation
- discussing the circuit split on whether a district court must or may consider new evidence when reviewing de novo a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, and concluding that a district court “has discretion, but is not required” to consider new evidence

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

ELIZABETH COATES, an individual, No. 3:23-cv-00931-JR
KELLY HICKMAN, an individual,
ELAINA SIGAFOOSE, an individual, ORDER
DARLENE ANDERSON, an individual,
STEPHANIE BRENDEN, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEGACY HEALTH, a corporation,

Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on January 8,
2024, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the
claims of Plaintiffs Kelly Hickman, Elaina Sigafoose, and Stephanie Brendan;1 dismiss those
claims without prejudice; and grant Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to amend the Complaint.

1 Defendant withdrew its Motion to Dismiss as to the claims of Plaintiffs Elizabeth Coates and
Darlene Anderson.
F&R, ECF 14. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation. Pls. Obj., ECF 16. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of
that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561
F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.
2003) (en banc).

In their Objections Plaintiffs raised several new arguments not previously presented to
Judge Russo. It is within a district court's discretion whether to accept new argument or evidence
submitted with objections. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 935 (9th Cir. 2004)(discussing the
district court's discretion to consider new arguments raised in objections); Brown v. Roe, 279
F.3d 742, 746 (9th Cir. 2002)(rejecting the Fourth Circuit's requirement that a district court must
consider new arguments raised in objections to a magistrate judge's findings and
recommendation); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 2000)(discussing the
circuit split on whether a district court must or may consider new evidence when reviewing de
novo a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, and concluding that a district court “has
discretion, but is not required” to consider new evidence); Hosp. Management Inc. v. Preferred

Contractors Ins. Co., No. 3:18-cv-00452-YY, 2021 WL 2813610, at *1 (D. Or. July 6,
2021)(declining to consider arguments not presented to the magistrate judge). In the exercise of
its discretion the Court declines to consider new arguments not previously presented to Judge
Russo, both to promote systemic efficiency and prevent “sandbagging.” See Howell, 231 F.3d at
621-22. The Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs’ objections to arguments presented to
Judge Russo and concludes that there is no basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation.
The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 14.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 6, as to the claims of
Hickman, Sigafoose, and Brenden and dismisses those claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs may
file a motion to amend the Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:______M__a_rc_h_ _1_9_,_ 2_0__2_4____.

______________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10397185. Public record. Not legal advice.