Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GOODWIN v. BRUGGEMAN-HATCH, 13-cv-02973-REB-MEH. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20140808a99 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge. The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#332], 1 filed July 8, 2014. No objections having been filed to the recommendation, I review it only for plain error. 2 See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116 , 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended disposit
More

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#332],1 filed July 8, 2014. No objections having been filed to the recommendation, I review it only for plain error.2 See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).

Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended disposition, I find and conclude that recommendation should be approved and adopted. Plaintiff conceded in his response to the motion to dismiss that the named defendant, Venture Law Group, PC, no longer has a corporate existence, having merged with another corporation, and thus is not a proper defendant subject to suit.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#332], filed July 8, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) Filed By Heller Ehrman (California), a Professional Corporation, Successor in Interest By Merger to Venture Law Group, a Professional Corporation [#271], filed May 6, 2014, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART as follows;

a. That the motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's claims against defendant, Venture Law Group, a professional corporation, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and b. That in all other respects, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT;

4. That plaintiff's claims against defendant, Venture Law Group, a professional corporation, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

5. That at the time judgment enters, judgment with prejudice SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, Venture Law Group, a professional corporation, against plaintiff, Jon A. Goodwin, on all claims for relief and causes of action asserted against this defendant; and

6. That defendant, Venture Law Group, a professional corporation, is DROPPED as a named party to this action, and the case caption AMENDED accordingly.

FootNotes


1. 1 "[#332]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
2. This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Morales-Fernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer