Caribe Servicios de Informacion Dominicana, S.A. v. Berry Agency LLC

Filing 37

ORDER Overruling 33 Objection to and Adopting 27 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant's Motion To Dismiss [# 12 ], filed October 15, 2013, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/10/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02431-REB-BNB
CARIBE SERVICIOS DE INFORMACION DOMINICANA, S.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BERRY AGENCY LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#27],1 filed December 19, 2013; and (2) Defendant Berry Agency
LLC’s Objections to Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#33],
filed January 2, 2014. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and deny
the apposite motion to dismiss.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed. Thus, I have considered carefully
the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. The recommendation is
detailed and well-reasoned. I concur with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the
plain meaning of the disputed contract provision seems to supports plaintiff’s claim, or

1

“[#27]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

alternatively, that the provision is, at a minimum, ambiguous. See Test Services, Inc.
v. Princeton Review, Inc., 2005 WL 3211594 at * 5 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2005) (“[I]f the
contract is found to be ambiguous, a motion for summary judgment – much less a
motion to dismiss – on a breach of contract claim is improper.”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). I thus find and conclude that the arguments advanced,
authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation
proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#27], filed
December 19, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in Defendant Berry Agency LLC’s Objections to
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#33], filed January 2, 2014,
are OVERRULED; and
3. That Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss [#12], filed October 15, 2013, is
DENIED.
Dated February 10, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2