Copley v. Medpace, Inc.
Filing
65
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 56 Report and Recommendations: Medpace and plaintiffs motions for summary judgment 40 and 46 areDENIED with respect to plaintiffs breach of contract claim. It is further ORDERED that Medpaces motion for summary judgment 40 is DENIED as moot with respect to plaintiffs unjustenrichment and equitable estoppel claims. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/18/2015. (jlw1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Ashley Copley,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
Medpace, Inc.,
Defendant(s).
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case Number: 1:12cv426
Judge Susan J. Dlott
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge
Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed
with this Court on December 19, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 56). Subsequently, the
defendant filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (doc. 61) and plaintiff’s filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation (Docs. 62 and 63).
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de
novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that
such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, Medpace and plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment (Docs 40 and 46) are
DENIED with respect to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. It is further ORDERED that Medpace’s
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 40) is DENIED as moot with respect to plaintiff’s unjust
enrichment and equitable estoppel claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___s/Susan J. Dlott___________
Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court
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?