Pacific Contours Corporation v. Fives Machining Systems, Inc., 8:18-cv-00413-DOC (JDEx). (2018)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20181129982
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file, including Complaint filed by Plaintiff Contours Corporation, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 18, "Motion") filed by Defendant Fives Machining Systems, Inc., the Opposition, Reply and Supplemental briefs in support of and/or opposition to the Motion, the Report and Recommendation of the assigne
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID O. CARTER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file, including Complaint filed by Plaintiff Contours Corporation, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 18, "Motion") filed by Defendant Fives Machining Systems, Inc., the Opposition, Reply and Supplemental briefs in support of and/or opposition to the Motion, the Report and Recommendation of the assigned..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAVID O. CARTER, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the records on file, including Complaint filed by Plaintiff Contours Corporation, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 18, "Motion") filed by Defendant Fives Machining Systems, Inc., the Opposition, Reply and Supplemental briefs in support of and/or opposition to the Motion, the Report and Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, as well as the Objections thereto and Replies to Objections filed by the parties. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and accepted;
2. The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
a. The Motion is DENIED as to Claim Three;
b. The Motion is GRANTED as to Claims Four and Five without leave to amend and final judgment in this action shall reflect that Claims Four and Five are dismissed.
Source: Leagle
