Dawn Food Products, Inc. v. VanDyke, No. 1:2021cv10895 - Document 65 (E.D. Mich. 2022)
Court Description: Opinion and Order (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 62 Report and Recommendation and (2) Denying Defendant Bakemark's 52 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dawn Food Products, Inc. v. VanDyke Doc. 65 Case 1:21-cv-10895-TLL-DRG ECF No. 65, PageID.555 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION DAWN FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:21-cv-10895 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge BRUCE VANDYKE, et al., Defendants. _________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT BAKEMARK’S MOTION TO DISMISS This is a trade-secret action in which a bakery company, Dawn Food Products, Inc., alleges that two of its former employees gave proprietary information to a direct competitor, BakeMark. ECF No. 39. In February 2022, Defendant BakeMark filed a motion to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI of Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 52. That motion was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, who recommended that it be denied. ECF No. 62. Although Judge Grand’s report stated that the parties could object to and seek review of his recommendation within 14 days of service, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant BakeMark has filed any objections. Therefore, they have waived their right to appeal Judge Grand’s conclusion that Counts IV, V and VI of Plaintiff’s complaint state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report and Recommendation ECF No. 62, is ADOPTED, and BakeMark’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 52, is DENIED. Dated: June 27, 2022 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
