INHABITANTS OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD v. TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re:denying 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 46 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mjlt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
INHABITANTS OF THE
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIME WARNER CABLE
NORTHEAST, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-00495-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (ECF No.
46) with the court on December 9, 2015, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), subsequent to a hearing on the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment (ECF No. 30, ECF No. 32) held on October 14, 2015
(ECF No. 45). The plaintiff, Inhabitants of the Town of Fairfield (the “Town”), and
the defendant, Time Warner Cable Northeast, LLC (“Time Warner”), each filed an
Objection to the Recommended Decision on December 23, 2015. ECF No. 48; ECF
No. 47. A hearing was held on the Recommended Decision and the objections on
February 17, 2016. ECF No. 53.
I have carefully reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision and the
parties’ objections, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo
determination of the matters objected to. I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions as set forth in his Recommended Decision.

1

Both parties raise objections to certain factual statements in the
Recommended Decision, the resolution of which is not determinative of the objections
to the Recommended Decision. As to all statements of fact in the Recommended
Decision, by application of Local Rule 56(g), such statements are not deemed
established for purposes of the proceedings in this case apart from the summary
judgment motions. Local Rule 56(g) (“Facts deemed admitted solely for purposes of
summary judgment shall not be deemed admitted for purposes other than
determining whether summary judgment is appropriate.”). The parties agree that
the references to October 2012 on pages 13 and 15 of the Recommended Decision
should read, as corrected, as October 2005.
I note that the reference to “count II” in the Conclusion of the Recommended
Decision should read, as corrected, as “Count III,” which is the unjust enrichment
claim in the plaintiff’s complaint.
It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 46) is hereby
ADOPTED. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is
DENIED. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is
GRANTED IN PART as to the claim of unjust enrichment (Count III) and
DENIED IN PART in all other respects. The references to October 2012 on
pages 13 and 15 of the Recommended Decision are amended to October 2005.
The reference to Count II on page 18 of the Recommended Decision is amended
to Count III.
2. A telephonic case management conference is scheduled for March 2, 2016, at
2:00 p.m.

2

SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of February, 2016.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

3