BUMGARNER v. FORD MOTOR GENERAL RETIREMENT PLAN, 1:14cv788. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150626773
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on March 10, 2015 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc
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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on March 10, 2015 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc...
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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on March 10, 2015 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31). Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority( Doc. 32) and defendants filed a response to the objections to the Report and Recommendation (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' partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is ORDERED that Count I (Promissory Estoppel), Count II (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) and Count IV (Breach of Contract) are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim, but that Defendants' motion to dismiss Ford National Employee Services Center and the Ford Motor General Retirement Plan as defendants are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
