GRUBBS v. SHEAKLEY GROUP, INC., 1:13cv246. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150319d87
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT , 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 November 17, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 129). Subsequently, the plaintiffs Linda Grubbs, Tri-Serve Limited, TriServe #1 and Ca
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT , 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 November 17, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 129). Subsequently, the plaintiffs Linda Grubbs, Tri-Serve Limited, TriServe #1 and Cap..
More
ORDER
SUSAN J. DLOTT, 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 November 17, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 129). Subsequently, the plaintiffs Linda Grubbs, Tri-Serve Limited, TriServe #1 and Capital Concepts filed objections (Doc. 135), defendant Frost Brown filed objections (Doc. 134) and defendant First Financial Bank National Association filed objections (Doc. 133) to such Report and Recommendation. The Sheakley defendants' filed a response to plaintiff's objections (Doc. 136), plaintiffs' filed a response to the objections of both First Financial (Doc. 137) and Frost Brown Todd (Doc. 138).
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 Recommendations should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' federal Lanham Act and RICO claims, Counts IV, V, XIV, and XV of the substituted first amended complaint (Docs. 100 & 109) are GRANTED and that plaintiffs' state law claims are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
