Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WALTON v. DANIEL, 14-cv-1122. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20150220b91 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE, District Judge. For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein [Record Document 24], and having thoroughly reviewed the record, including the written objections filed, and concurring with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law; IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Record Document 11] is DENIED and that summary judgment is GRANTED sua sponte, dismissing with pre
More

ORDER

ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE, District Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein [Record Document 24], and having thoroughly reviewed the record, including the written objections filed, and concurring with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law;

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Record Document 11] is DENIED and that summary judgment is GRANTED sua sponte, dismissing with prejudice all claims against Randal Daniel.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Strike [Record Document 15] is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint [Record Document 9] is STRICKEN.

Moreover, in consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion To File a Second Supplemental and Amended Petition and for the same reasons outlined in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Record Document 24], the Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiff's motion. [Record Document 26]. As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court instructs the Plaintiff that she may file a motion to amend her complaint and add OS Restaurant Services, LLC, within the time allowed by a scheduling order, if she believes that she can state a good-faith claim against that entity under the principles of respondeat superior. [Record Document 24, p. 14]. Additionally, the Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion To Unseal Defendant's "Proprietor" Contracts [Record Document 26], given the lack of relevance of this contractual material to these proceedings and this Court's jurisdiction over Randal Daniel, the confidential nature of the un-redacted sealed material, and the Magistrate Judge's previous order directing "any and all non-confidential provisions or sections of the documents" be accessible through the Court's public record. [Record Document 18].

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