Rachel Centariczki, an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON RACHEL CENTARICZKI, an individual Case No. 3:24-cv-00127-AR and on behalf of all other similarly situated, ORDER ADOPTING F&R IN PART Plaintiff, v. GLEIBERMAN PROPERTIES, INC.; KEELER PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; CASTELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; J MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; S&M MELLANO PINE RUSSELLVILLE LLC; MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMON APARTMENTS HS LP; MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS MS LP; and MG RUSSELLVILLE COMMONS APARTMENTS 235 LLC, Defendants.

IMMERGUT, District Judge.

On December 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”), ECF 45, recommending that this Court (1) deny Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification, ECF 34, and (2) grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, ECF 32. Defendants filed objections to the F&R, ECF 50, and Plaintiff responded to those objections, ECF 52. This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of the F&R to which Defendants objected. This Court adopts in part Judge Armistead’s F&R as explained below.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party objects to a magistrate judge’s F&R, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. But the court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nevertheless, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte” whether de novo or under another standard. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

This Court has reviewed de novo the portions of Judge Armistead’s F&R to which Defendants objected. The F&R is ADOPTED IN PART as follows. This Court adopts Judge Armistead’s discussion and conclusions that (1) Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 32 H (“ORCP H”) does not apply in federal court, F&R, ECF 45 at 6–12, and (2) Plaintiff should be granted leave to file a proposed third amended complaint, id. at 25. However, because this Court agrees with the F&R that ORCP 32 H does not apply in federal court under the Erie doctrine, it is unnecessary to reach the issue, in the alternative, of whether Plaintiff substantially complied with ORCP 32 H. Therefore, this Court declines to adopt the F&R’s discussion and conclusion that Plaintiff substantially complied with ORCP 32 H. Id. at 13–24. The F&R is otherwise adopted in full, and for these reasons, this Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification, ECF 34, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, ECF 32.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2026.

/s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge