SleekEZ, LLC v. Horton et al, No. 1:2016cv00009 - Document 77 (D. Mont. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL. DENYING 59 Motion in Limine AND DENYING 61 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Susan P. Watters on 2/28/2018. (AMC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SleekEZ, LLC v. Horton et al Doc. 77 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION SLEEKEZ, LLC, CV 16-09-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. HAL HORTON, doing business as Groom Ninja, Defendant. Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan's Findings and Recommendations filed on January 8, 2018. (Doc. 76). Judge Cavan recommends that this Court deny Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of James Winchell. Judge Cavan also recommends this Court deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 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 Cavan's Findings and Recommendations. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court reviews Judge Cavan's Findings and Recommendations for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981 ). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm 1 Dockets.Justia.com conviction that a mistake has 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 Cavan committed clear error. IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by United States Magistrate Judge Cavan (Doc. 76) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of James Winchell is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. '-P-DATED thisQ{L day of February, 2018. 2 SUSANP. WATTERS United States District Judge
]]>
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.
