Summary
holding that "stock options themselves create no payment obligation on behalf of the grantor"
Summary of this case from Hannan v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.Opinion
Civil No. 07-309-HU.
December 19, 2007
Linda L. Marshall, PMB 408, Lake Oswego, OR, Attorney for Plaintiffs.
Paul M. Ostroff, LANE POWELL, PC, Portland, OR, Attorney for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Dennis James Hubel filed Findings and Recommendation (#29) on November 28, 2007, in the above-entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. 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 Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#29) dated November 28, 2007, in its entirety. Defendant's motion (#6) to dismiss plaintiffs' first, second, third, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth claims is granted, and that dismissal is with prejudice for all claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.