Spin Master Ltd. et al v. Bureau Veritas S.A. et al

Filing 122

ORDER granting 71 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 77 Motion for Joinder; denying 84 Motion for Leave to File; adopting Report and Recommendation re 113 . Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Schroeder for further proceedings. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 4/22/2011. (JMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SPIN MASTER LTD.,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
08-CV-923A

v.

BUREAU VERITAS CONSUMER
PRODUCTS SERVICES, INC. and
EUROFINS PRODUCT SAFETY LABS,
Defendants.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 18, 2010, defendant Bureau Veritas
Consumer Products Services, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
dismissing Count Three of plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 71). On June
11, 2010, defendant Eurofins Product Safety Labs filed a motion to join the
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 77). On August 18, 2010, plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 84). On
March 7, 2011, Magistrate Judge Schroeder filed a Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 113), recommending that defendants’ joint motion for judgment on the
pleadings be granted and that plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend be denied.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 21,
2011. Defendants filed responses to plaintiff’s objections on April 8 and 9, 2011.
Plaintiff filed reply papers on April 15, 2011. The Court has deemed oral

argument unnecessary and has considered the motion submitted on papers
pursuant to Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions from the parties, the
Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Schroeder’s
Report and Recommendation, the Court grants defendants’ motion for judgment
on the pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 71, 77) and dismisses Count Three of plaintiff’s
amended complaint. The Court also denies plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 84).
This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Schroeder for further
proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: April 22, 2011

2