MAKS, Inc et al v. EODT General Security Company et al

Filing 230

ORDER that the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation 220 and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion for Partial Dismissal 116 .. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 8/23/12. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
MAKS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EODT GENERAL SECURITY CO., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:10-CV-443
(VARLAN/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This civil matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the
“R&R”) entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on August 3, 2012
[Doc. 220], on the Motion for Partial Dismissal by defendants EOD Technology, Inc.
(“EOD”), Matt Kaye, and EODT General Security Company (“EODT Security”) [Doc.
116], in which defendants move the Court for an order dismiss Counts III through IX of
the amended complaint [Doc. 106], in whole or in part. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge
Guyton recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion for partial
dismissal.

Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that this litigation should

proceed as to Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX, except that the conspiracy claims
and the requests for attorney’s fees related to Counts V, VI, VIII, and IX be dismissed,
and that Count VII be dismissed in its entirety. There have been no timely objections to
the R&R, and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections
as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

After a careful review of the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate
Judge Guyton’s recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its
ruling. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS in whole the R&R [Doc. 220], and GRANTS
in part and DENIES in part the Motion for Partial Dismissal [Doc. 116]. The Court’s
specific rulings are as follows:
1.

That EODT’s request that EODT Security and Matt Kaye be dismissed
from this case is DENIED as moot;

2.

That EODT’s request for dismissal of the conspiracy claims and allegations
is GRANTED and that the conspiracy allegations are DISMISSED;

3.

That EODT’s request that Count III be dismissed or that EODT be granted
judgment in its favor on that claim is DENIED;

4.

That EODT’s request that Count IV be dismissed or that EODT be granted
judgment in its favor on that claim is DENIED;

5.

That EODT’s request that Count V be dismissed or that EODT be granted
judgment in its favor on that claim is DENIED;

6.

That EODT’s request that Count VI be dismissed or that EODT be granted
judgment in its favor on that claim is DENIED;

7.

That EODT’s request that Count VII be dismissed is GRANTED;

8.

That EODT’s request that Count VIII be dismissed or that EODT be
granted judgment in its favor on that claim is DENIED;

2

9.

That EODT’s request that Count IX be dismissed or that EODT be granted
judgment in its favor on that claim is DENIED;

10.

That EODT’s request that the prayers for attorney’s fees relating to Counts
V, VI, VIII, and IX be dismissed is GRANTED, but that the request for
dismissal is DENIED as to Counts I, II, III, and IV, and

11.

That all of plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Mark Anderson are
DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3