Reynolds & Reynolds Company v. Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc.

Filing 56

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 43 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Counterclaim filed by Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc.: It is recommended that Defendant's Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Counterclaim and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (doc. 43 ) be DENIED AS MOOT. Objections to R&R due by November 15, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on October 28, 2013. (jwc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS CO., Plaintiff, Case No.: 1:12-CV-848 vs. SUPERIOR INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS INC., District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman Defendant. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 On October 15, 2013, Defendant, Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc., filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and Counterclaim. Doc. 52. Defendant had previously filed a Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Counterclaim and Incorporated Memorandum of Law on July, 26, 2013. Doc. 43. Defendant asserts that its new filing “supersedes the proposed amended pleadings attached to SIS’ Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Counterclaim and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. #43), filed July 26, 2013.” Doc. 52 at PageID 686. Further, Ms. Crandall, counsel for Defendant, indicated during the telephone conference held on October 23, 2013 that Defendant intended for its most recent Motion for Leave to Amend (doc. 52) to supersede its prior Motion for Leave to Amend (doc. 43). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Counterclaim and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (doc. 43) be DENIED AS MOOT.                                                              1 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. October 28, 2013   s/ Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge -2- NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F) and may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).   -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?