PaDRE Nterprises, Inc. v. Rhea

Filing 103

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 63 Motion to Dismiss filed by PaDRE Nterprises, Inc., 87 Report and Recommendations, 65 Motion to Dismiss filed by Hugh Gary Rhea. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 3/18/13. (cm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
PADRE NTERPRISES, INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
VS.
HUGH GARY RHEA d/b/a
RMP CROP INSURANCE
Defendant.

Case No. 4:11CV674

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this
matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636. On January 31, 2013, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Second
Amended Counterclaim for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 63) be DENIED as to Defendant’s breach
of contract counterclaim, DENIED as to Defendant’s fraud counterclaim based on Newhouse’s
assurance that he had both federal and state licenses and Newhouse’s representation that he would
give up his part time employment to recruit farmers, GRANTED as to any other fraud counterclaim
asserted, and GRANTED as to Defendant’s breach of loyalty claim, and that Defendant’s Motion
for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 65) be
DENIED in its entirety.
The court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Defendant, as well as
Plaintiffs’ response, and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
are correct and Defendant’s objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate

1

Judge. The court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings
and conclusions of this court.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Third Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Second Amended Counterclaim
for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 63) is DENIED as to Defendant’s breach of contract counterclaim,
DENIED as to Defendant’s fraud counterclaim based on Newhouse’s assurance that he had both
federal and state licenses and Newhouse’s representation that he would give up his part time
employment to recruit farmers, GRANTED as to any other fraud counterclaim asserted, and
GRANTED as to Defendant’s breach of loyalty claim, and Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal of
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 65) is DENIED in its
entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

.

SIGNED this the 18th day of March, 2013.

_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2