Bowell et al v. Mowery Construction, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 - the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full, Defendant Haas Cabinet Company, Inc.'s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings 10 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Plaintiffs' OCSPA claims based upon failure to repair a defect covered by warranty remain pending, Plaintiffs' OCSPA claims based upon Haas's failure to maintain a statutory agent in Ohio are DISMISSED, Plaintiffs' claims under Ohio Rev. Code
67; 4722.01, Ohio Admin. Code § 109:4-3-05, and for fraud and deceit are DISMISSED; and Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and/or breach of an implied-in-fact contract are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-30-2016. (de)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JENNY BOWELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:16-cv-52

vs.
MOWERY CONSTRUCTION, INC, et al.,

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 14)

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Newman (Doc. 14), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting
that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
14) is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant Haas Cabinet Company, Inc.’s motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings (doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (3)
Plaintiffs’ OCSPA claims based upon failure to repair a defect covered by warranty remain
pending; (4) Plaintiffs’ OCSPA claims based upon Haas’s failure to maintain a statutory agent in
Ohio are DISMISSED; (5) Plaintiffs’ claims under Ohio Rev. Code § 4722.01, Ohio Admin.
Code § 109:4-3-05, and for fraud and deceit are DISMISSED; and (6) Plaintiffs’ claims for
breach of contract and/or breach of an implied-in-fact contract are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 30, 2016

*s/THOMAS M. ROSE
____________________________________
Thomas M. Rose
United States District Judge