Burgi et al v. Gurstel Law Firm, PA et al

Filing 31

ORDER adopting 30 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED 1. That Gurstel's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 6 ] is granted. 2. That the Burgis' Federal causes of action are dismissed with prejudice. 3. That the Burgis' State la w cause of action under the Minnesota Collection Agencies Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 332.37, is dismissed with prejudice, and any remaining State law actions be dismissed without prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 10/17/08. (sf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Yvonne Burgi and Robert J. Burgi, Plaintiffs, vs. Gurstel Law Firm, PA,1 OSI Portfolio Services, and John and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants.

Civ. No. 07-4772 (PJS/RLE)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson, and after an independent review of the files, records and proceedings in the above-entitled matter, IT IS ORDERED: 1. 2. That Gurstel's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 6] is granted. That the Burgis' Federal causes of action is dismissed with prejudice.

Although the Complaint identifies the Defendant as Gurstel Law Firm, P.A., counsel for Gurstel advises that the entity's proper name is now Gurstel, Staloch & Chargo, P.A. Accordingly, we have substituted Gurstel, Staloch & Chargo, P.A., as the named Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

3.

That the Burgis' State law cause of action under the Minnesota Collection Agencies

Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 332.37, is dismissed with prejudice, and any remaining State law actions be dismissed without prejudice. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. DATED: October 17, 2008 s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge