CMI Roadbuilding, Inc v. Iowa Parts, Inc et al

Filing 122

ORDER Accepting 116 Report and Recommendation: The 93 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Iowa Parts, Inc.'s Counterclaim 84 by Plaintiffs CMI Roadbuilding, Inc, CMI Roadbuilding, Ltd. is granted. Iowa Parts counterclaim for abuse of process is dismissed. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 06/30/2017. (jjh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

CMI ROADBUILDING, INC. and CMI
ROADBUILDING, LTD.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 16-CV-33-LRR

vs.

ORDER

IOWA PARTS, INC.,
Defendant.
IOWA PARTS, INC.,
Counter Claimant,
vs.
CMI ROADBUILDING, INC. and CMI
ROADBUILDING, LTD.,
Counter Defendants.
____________________
The matter before the court is United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams’s
Report and Recommendation (docket no. 116).

The Report and Recommendation

recommends that the court grant Plaintiffs CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. and CMI Roadbuilding,
Ltd.’s (collectively, “CMI”) “Motion to Dismiss or Strike Defendant Iowa Part, Inc.’s
Counterclaim” (“Motion”) (docket no. 93).
On April 11, 2017, CMI filed a Second Amended Complaint (docket no. 81),
asserting claims against Climate Engineers, Inc. and Defendant Iowa Parts, Inc. (“Iowa
Parts”) under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1832; the Iowa Uniform Trade
Secrets Act, Iowa Code § 550.4; and Iowa common law for conversion and unjust
enrichment. On April 25, 2017, Iowa Parts filed an Answer and Counterclaim (docket no.
84) asserting a counterclaim for abuse of process under Iowa law. On April 26, 2017, the

parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (docket no. 85), dismissing
Climate Engineers, Inc. from the instant action. On May 16, 2017, CMI filed the Motion,
requesting that the court dismiss or strike Iowa Parts’s abuse of process counterclaim. On
May 30, 2017, Iowa Parts filed a Resistance (docket no. 111). On June 6, 2017, CMI
filed a Reply (docket no. 113). On June 8, 2017, Judge Williams issued the Report and
Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Williams advised the parties
that any objections to the Report and Recommendation “must be filed within fourteen . . .
days of the service of a copy of [the] Report and Recommendation.”
Recommendation at 11.

Report and

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed.1
Pursuant to statute, this court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation is as follows:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides for de
novo review of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation on dispositive motions
when objections are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
has held that it is reversible error for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo review
of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation when such review is required. See,
e.g., United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003). The court reviews
the unobjected-to portions of the proposed findings or recommendations for “plain error.”

1

Since Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation, he also entered an
order which, among other things, denied Iowa Parts’s motion to amend its answer and
assert additional counterclaims (docket no. 86). See June 13, 2017 Order (docket no. 119)
at 19.
2

See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that,
where a party does not file objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation, the
party waives the right to de novo review and the court will review the decision for plain
error).
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to the court upon review
of Judge Williams’s findings and conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify
them. Therefore, the court ACCEPTS Judge Williams’s Report and Recommendation of
June 8, 2017.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 116) is

ADOPTED and the Motion (docket no. 93) is GRANTED. Iowa Parts’s counterclaim for
abuse of process (docket no. 84) is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of June, 2017.

3