LIBERTAS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. CHERRYHILL MANAGEMENT, INC., 1:10cv935. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20120719969
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on May 15, 2012 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28). Subsequently, the defendants filed joint objections to such Report and Recommendation
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on May 15, 2012 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28). Subsequently, the defendants filed joint objections to such Report and Recommendation ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on May 15, 2012 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28). Subsequently, the defendants filed joint objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) and plaintiff filed a response to the objections (Doc. 34).
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. § 411 (Count 1) is DENIED.
The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims (Counts 2-8).
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be GRANTED as to plaintiff's claim for civil conspiracy (Count 8); GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to plaintiff's claims for conversion and replevin (Counts 6 and 7) and DENIED as to plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contract and business relationships and misappropriation of trade secrets (Counts 2-5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
