Conroy v. Marianne's Roofing Company LLC, 18-436 (JRT/SER). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20180626b98
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN R. TUNHEIM , Chief District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau filed the Report and Recommendation on June 4, 2018 [Docket No. 34]. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted. Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated June 4, 2018 [Docket No. 34]. Accordingly,
Summary: ORDER JOHN R. TUNHEIM , Chief District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau filed the Report and Recommendation on June 4, 2018 [Docket No. 34]. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted. Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated June 4, 2018 [Docket No. 34]. Accordingly, ..
More
ORDER
JOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau filed the Report and Recommendation on June 4, 2018 [Docket No. 34]. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted.
Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated June 4, 2018 [Docket No. 34]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for a Finding of Civil Contempt [Docket No. 24] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
1. United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau shall issue a separate Order to Show Cause to be personally served by Plaintiffs' attorneys on each of the Defendant and Marianne Krueger ("Krueger") requesting that the Defendant and Krueger explain why they should not each be held in contempt of court— including the administration of both monetary sanctions and confinement as appropriate to coerce compliance with the Court's Order Dated March 29, 2018 [Docket No. 29];
2. Counsel for Plaintiffs must submit a request for attorneys' fees and costs to the Court for its review with fourteen (14) days of this order, addressing the costs incurred by enforcing the Court's Order Dated March 29, 2018, and in bringing their Motion for a Finding of Civil Contempt; and
3. The motion is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects.
Source: Leagle
