Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Cahill
Filing
32
ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne: AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendation; denying as moot 4 Motion for to Dissolve or Modify Temporary Restraining Order; denying as moot 8 Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order; gra nting in part and denying in part 9 Motion for Expedited Discovery; denying as moot 10 Motion for Expedited Response and Decision; granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 13 Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration (cjt, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TODD CAHILL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-CV-346-JHP
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 22, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder entered his Report
and Recommendation in regard to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 11];
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve or Modify Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 4]; the Motion to
Extend Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 8]; and the Motion for Expedited Ruling on
Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery [Doc. No.
10]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc.
No. 11] be granted in part and denied in part. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that: (i)
the Motion to Dissolve or Modify Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 4], the Motion to Extend
Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 8], and the Motion for Expedited Ruling On Plaintiff’s
Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order and for Expedited Discovery [Doc. No. 10] should
be denied as moot, as the temporary restraining order issued by the state court expired by its own
terms prior to the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction; (ii) the Motion for Expedited
Discovery [Doc. No. 9] should be granted to the extent the parties announced they are conducting
limited discovery by agreement, but otherwise denied; and, (iii) the Expedited Motion to Stay
Pending Arbitration [Doc. No. 13] should be granted, as the parties agree the case should be
submitted to arbitration. The parties have filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation within the time prescribed by law. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
This Court finds that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is supported
by the record. Therefore, upon full consideration of the entire record and the issues presented herein,
this Court finds and orders that the Report and Recommendation entered by the United States
Magistrate Judge on January 22, 2013, be AFFIRMED and ADOPTED by this Court as its
Findings and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2013.
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?