Copperhead Industrial Inc. v. G.E. Schmidt, Inc., 1:17-cv-609. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180920796
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 01, 2018
Summary: Order Overruling Objections and Affirming Report and Recommendation SUSAN J. DLOTT , District Judge . This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) on May 29, 2018 through which she recommended that the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction filed by Defendant G.E. Schmidt, Inc. (Doc. 7) and Defendant Kyokutoh Co., Ltd
Summary: Order Overruling Objections and Affirming Report and Recommendation SUSAN J. DLOTT , District Judge . This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) on May 29, 2018 through which she recommended that the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction filed by Defendant G.E. Schmidt, Inc. (Doc. 7) and Defendant Kyokutoh Co., Ltd...
More
Order Overruling Objections and Affirming Report and Recommendation
SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge.
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) on May 29, 2018 through which she recommended that the Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction filed by Defendant G.E. Schmidt, Inc. (Doc. 7) and Defendant Kyokutoh Co., Ltd. (Doc. 15) be denied. Subsequently, Defendants filed Objections (Doc. 32) to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to the Objections (Doc. 34), and Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 36).
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo the filings in this matter as required by Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES the Objections and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
