SAMUEL v. SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL L.L.C., 1:13-CV-323. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20140404c73
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARCIA A. CRONE, District Judge. This case is referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for all pretrial matters. (Doc. No. 5.) The court has received and considered the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 65), which recommends that the court deny the "Motion of Signal Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)" (Doc. No. 13) filed by Defendants Sign
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARCIA A. CRONE, District Judge. This case is referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for all pretrial matters. (Doc. No. 5.) The court has received and considered the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 65), which recommends that the court deny the "Motion of Signal Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)" (Doc. No. 13) filed by Defendants Signa..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MARCIA A. CRONE, District Judge.
This case is referred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for all pretrial matters. (Doc. No. 5.) The court has received and considered the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 65), which recommends that the court deny the "Motion of Signal Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)" (Doc. No. 13) filed by Defendants Signal International, L.L.C., Signal International, Inc., Signal International Texas, G.P., and Signal International Texas, L.P. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Signal"). The Defendants filed timely objections (Doc. No. 65) to the report, and the Plaintiffs filed a response (Doc. No. 74).
Pursuant to Signal's objections, the court has conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation based on the relevant pleadings, motions, and responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After careful consideration, the court concludes that the magistrate judge correctly determined that Signal's motion to dismiss should be denied. Consequently, Signal's objections are without merit.
It is ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Doc. No. 65) is ADOPTED; and the "Motion of Signal Defendants to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)" (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
