Dixon v. Clearwire Corporation

Filing 52

ORDER : IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1.Defendants Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 4] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:a.Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiffs RICO claim. Plaintiffs RICO claim is dismissed WITH PREJ UDICE.b.Defendants Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with regard to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim.2.Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 12] is DENIED without prejudice.3.Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel Kerry Middleton and Rhiannon Beckendorf on Grounds of Perjury [Docket No. 14] is DENIED.4.Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment [Docket No. 18] is DENIED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on July 31, 2012. (slf)cc: Joseph Dixon Modified on 7/31/2012 (jam).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Joseph Dixon,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 11-2558 (JNE/JSM)
ORDER

Clearwire Corporation, on behalf of its
wholly-owned subsidiary Clear Wireless LLC
Defendant.
In a Report and Recommendation dated June 11, 2012, the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron,
United States Magistrate Judge, recommended granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with
regard to Plaintiff’s RICO claim, denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with regard to the
breach of contract claim, and denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for
Sanctions, and Motion for Default Judgment. Plaintiff objected and Defendant responded. The
Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that
review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 35]. Therefore, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 4] is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
a. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with regard to
Plaintiff’s RICO claim. Plaintiff’s RICO claim is dismissed WITH
PREJUDICE.
b. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with regard to Plaintiff’s
breach of contract claim.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 12] is DENIED
without prejudice.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel Kerry
Middleton and Rhiannon Beckendorf on Grounds of Perjury [Docket No.
14] is DENIED.

1

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [Docket No. 18] is DENIED.

Dated: July 31, 2012
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2