AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION v. BLUME, 11-358 (RHK/TNL). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20120604703
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Guy A. Blume's Objections (Doc. No. 123) to Magistrate Judge Leung's May 9, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 121) striking his Answer and Counterclaim. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and Local Rule 72.2(a), the Court must set aside those portions of Judge Leung's Order that are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Having carefully reviewed the Order and the memoranda submitt
Summary: ORDER RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Guy A. Blume's Objections (Doc. No. 123) to Magistrate Judge Leung's May 9, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 121) striking his Answer and Counterclaim. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and Local Rule 72.2(a), the Court must set aside those portions of Judge Leung's Order that are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Having carefully reviewed the Order and the memoranda submitte..
More
ORDER
RICHARD H. KYLE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Guy A. Blume's Objections (Doc. No. 123) to Magistrate Judge Leung's May 9, 2012 Order (Doc. No. 121) striking his Answer and Counterclaim. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and Local Rule 72.2(a), the Court must set aside those portions of Judge Leung's Order that are "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Having carefully reviewed the Order and the memoranda submitted in connection with the Objections thereto, and being sufficiently advised of the prior proceedings in this action, the Court concludes that the Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.1 Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that the Objections (Doc. No. 123) are OVERRULED and the Order (Doc. No. 121) is AFFIRMED.
FootNotes
1. Moreover, had the Court conducted a de novo review of Judge Leung's Order, it would have reached the same result.
Source: Leagle
