Grubbs et al v. Sheakley et al

Filing 81

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott; pltfs motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 54) is granted in part and denied in part; motion to amend is denied as to count xii; plaintiffs aiding and abettin g claim against First Financial; pltfs concede that they fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment against deft US Bank; the motion to amend is denied as to countn xx of the proposed amended complaint; motion to amend complaint is granted as to the other remaining counts; defts motions to dismiss (Docs. 17, 21, 25, 26, 35, and 58) are denied as moot. (vp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

Linda Grubbs, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
Sheakley Group, Inc., et al.,
Defendant(s).

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case Number: 1:13cv246
Chief 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. Litkkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge
reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on January 17, 2014 a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 75). Subsequently, the defendant filed objections to such Report and
Recommendation ( Doc. 78) and plaintiffs filed a response to the objections (Doc. 79).
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, plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc. 54) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. the motion to amend is DENIED as to Count XII, plaintiffs’ aiding and abetting
claim against First Financial Bank;
2. plaintiffs concede that they fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment against
defendant U.S. Bank; thus the motion to amend is DENIED as to Count XX of the
proposed amended complaint;

3. the motion to amend is GRANTED as to the remaining counts.
Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 17, 21, 25, 26, 35, and 58) are DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court