Arterbury et al v. Odessa Separator, Inc.

Filing 123

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 113 Report and Recommendations. 61 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Odessa Separator, Inc. and 57 Sealed Motion to Dismiss filed by Odessa Separator, Inc. are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 2/22/2019. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROY ARTERBURY, DELWIN COBB, and
CAVINS CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,
v.
ODESSA SEPARATOR, INC.,

Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§ Case No. 5:16-CV-00183-RWS-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. Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 113), which recommends that the Court deny Defendant
Odessa Separator, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 57) and Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 61).
In the underlying motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff Cavins Corporation is
not an exclusive licensee of the Patent-in-Suit and, therefore, lacks standing to be a party to this
case. Docket No. 57 at 1. In its motion for summary judgment, Cavins challenges all plaintiffs’
ability to recover lost profits, partially based on Cavins’ alleged lack of standing and partially on
the sufficiency of the pleadings. See Docket No. 61.
As to standing, the Magistrate Judge first noted that Cavins sufficiently plead its own
standing. Docket No. 113 at 6. Magistrate Judge Payne then concluded that the facts “suggest
that the license agreement granted exclusivity to Cavins” and there was at least a factual dispute
as to whether Cavins was the exclusive licensee of the Patent-in-Suit. Id. at 7, 10. For damages,

the Magistrate Judge determined that the pleadings supported Plaintiffs’ damages theories. Id. at
10–11. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny both motions.
The parties did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Consequently, the
parties are not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and
recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review
of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District
Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the
.
Magistrate Judge and agrees with the Report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s
proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the
sound discretion of the judge warrants,’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)).
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Payne’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 113) is
hereby ADOPTED. Defendant Odessa Separator, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 57) and
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 61) are DENIED.
SIGNED this 22nd day of February, 2019.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2