Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Cahill

Filing 32

ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne: AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 4 Motion for to Dissolve or Modify Temporary Restraining Order; denying as moot 8 Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order; gra nting in part and denying in part 9 Motion for Expedited Discovery; denying as moot 10 Motion for Expedited Response and Decision; granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 13 Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (cjt, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. TODD CAHILL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 12-CV-346-JHP ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On January 22, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder entered his Report and Recommendation in regard to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 11]; Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve or Modify Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 4]; the Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 8]; and the Motion for Expedited Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery [Doc. No. 10]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 11] be granted in part and denied in part. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that: (i) the Motion to Dissolve or Modify Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 4], the Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 8], and the Motion for Expedited Ruling On Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery [Doc. No. 10] should be denied as moot, as the temporary restraining order issued by the state court expired by its own terms prior to the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction; (ii) the Motion for Expedited Discovery [Doc. No. 9] should be granted to the extent the parties announced they are conducting limited discovery by agreement, but otherwise denied; and, (iii) the Expedited Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration [Doc. No. 13] should be granted, as the parties agree the case should be submitted to arbitration. The parties have filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation within the time prescribed by law. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This Court finds that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is supported by the record. Therefore, upon full consideration of the entire record and the issues presented herein, this Court finds and orders that the Report and Recommendation entered by the United States Magistrate Judge on January 22, 2013, be AFFIRMED and ADOPTED by this Court as its Findings and Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2013.