Schiffler et al v. Home Depot USA, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 76 . 1.Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 60], is GRANTED as to (1) Plaintiffs claim for defective or inadequate instructions or warnings; (2) Plaintiffs manufacturing defect cla im; (3) Plaintiffs express warranty claim; (4) Plaintiffs implied warranty claim, to the extent not merged into the legal doctrine of design defect; and (5) Ms. Schifflers claim for loss of consortium; each of which Plaintiff and Ms. Schiffler have waived on the record. 2.Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 60], is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs head injury claims. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on March 13, 2013. (HAM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
________________________________________________________________________
THOMAS SCHIFFLER AND
BRITTANY SCHIFFLER,

Civil No. 07-4303 (JRT/LIB)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
HOME DEPOT USA, INC., JOHN DOE,
RICHARD ROE, AND XYZ ENTITY,

Defendants,
________________________________________________________________________
Michael Bryant, BRADSHAW & BRYANT PLLC, 1505 Division Street,
Waite Park, MN 56387, for plaintiff.
Dale Thornsjo and Margaret Santos, O’MEARA LEER WAGNER &
KOHL, PA, 7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55439, for
Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc.
The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. No objections
have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted.
Based upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all the
files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 60], is

GRANTED as to (1) Plaintiff’s claim for defective or inadequate instructions or
warnings; (2) Plaintiff’s manufacturing defect claim; (3) Plaintiff’s express warranty

claim; (4) Plaintiff’s implied warranty claim, to the extent not merged into the legal
doctrine of design defect; and (5) Ms. Schiffler’s claim for loss of consortium; each of
which Plaintiff and Ms. Schiffler have waived on the record.
2.

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Docket No. 60], is

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s head injury claims.

DATED: March 13, 2013
at Minneapolis, Minnesota

s/John R. Tunheim_____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge