Guddeck et al v SmithKline Beecham Corporation

Filing 110

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated May 13, 2014 76 . 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court 53 is DENIED.(Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 7/22/14. (GRR)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA KAYLEA GUDDECK, a Minor, by Julie Guddeck, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Civil File No. 13-2508 (MJD/LIB) SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, Defendant. Aaron Heckaman, Adam D. Peavy, Justin C. Jenson, Kenneth W. Pearson, Mario D’Angelo, Michael K. Johnson, Robert W. Cowan, Rolf Fiebiger, Sundeep Grewal, and Thomas Scott Allen, Bailey Peavy Bailey, PLLC, Counsel for Plaintiff. Andrew T. Bayman, Halli D. Cohn, Jaime E. Davis, Lauren Reeder McClurg, and Robert K. Woo, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, Jerry W. Blackwell and Peter J. Goss, Blackwell Burke PA, Counsel for Defendant. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois, dated May 13, 2014. [Docket No. 76] Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Docket No. 79] 1 Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brisbois dated May 13, 2014. Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated May 13, 2014 [Docket No. 76]. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court [Docket No. 53] is DENIED. Dated: July 22, 2014 s/ Michael J. Davis Michael J. Davis Chief Judge United States District Court 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?