Hetu v. Charter Communications et al, No. 1:2014cv00115 - Document 34 (D. Mont. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER ADOPTING Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations 33 IN FULL. Defendant Charter's Motion for Partial Dismissal 15 is GRANTED and Counts 1,2,3 and 5 against Charter are dismissed. Defendant Lane's Motion to Dismiss 15 27 is GRANTED with respects to Counts 1,2,3 and 5 and DENIED with respect to Count 4. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 5/1/2015. (EMH, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hetu v. Charter Communications et al Doc. 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION FILED Clerl<, U.S. District Court District Of Montana Billings LAURA HETU, CV 14-H5-BLG-SPW Plaintiffs, OPINION and ORDER vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and AMY LANE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants. Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby's Findings and Recommendations filed on April 6, 2015. In the Findings and Recommendations, Judge Ostby recommends that this Court grant Defendant Charter Communications, LLC's ("Charter") motion for partial dismissal (doc. 15) and grant Defendant Amy Lane's motion to dismiss (doc. 27) in part and deny it in part. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(l), the parties were required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court must still review Judge Ostby's conclusions for clear error. Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 1 SCA1\TNED Dockets.Justia.com been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge Ostby committed clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 33) are ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. Defendant Charter's Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. 15) is GRANTED, and Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 against Charter are dismissed. 3. Defendant Lane's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15, 27) is GRANTED with respect to Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5 and DENIED with respect to Count 4. DATED this / 57Jay of May 2015. ~etc/~ SlJSANP:WATTERS United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
