Preferential Networks IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 19 Motion to Dismiss, filed by AT&T Mobility, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility, AT&T Mobility II, LLC d/b/a AT&T Mobility, New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Mobility, Cricket Wireless LLC, 44 Report and Recommendations,. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/31/2017. (nkl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PREFERENTIAL NETWORKS IP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC. MOBILITY, LLC D/B/A AT&T MOBILITY, AT&T MOBILITY II LLC D/B/A AT&T MOBILITY, NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC. D/B/A AT&T MOBILITY, and CRICKET WIRELESS LLC, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 2:16-cv-01374-JRG-RSP ORDER The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 44) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) (Dkt. No. 19) be granted in part. Defendants objected to the Report (Dkt. No. 45) and Preferential Networks responded (Dkt. No. 46). Having considered the Report and Recommendation, Defendants’ objections, and Preferential Networks’s response, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 44) is hereby ADOPTED and Defendants’ objections (Dkt. No. 45) are OVERRULED. Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 19) is therefore GRANTED IN PART. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Preferential Networks’s allegations of precomplaint willfulness, but DENIES the motion in all other respects. SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2017. ____________________________________ RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?