Kipp Flores Architects LLC v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.

Filing 117

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 14 Memorandum and Recommendations, 20 Memorandum and Recommendations, 109 Memorandum and Recommendations, (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KIPP FLORES ARCHITECTS, LLC

v.
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 30, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2702

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This court has reviewed the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Milloy signed on February 29, 2016, and has made a de novo determination
of the recommended disposition. Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1989).

This court finds that the

Memorandum and Recommendation should be, and is, adopted as this court’s Memorandum
and Order. This court has considered and overruled the objections filed by Kipp Flores
Architects, LLC. The court notes that neither the facts disclosed in the record nor authorities
cited in the briefs Kipp Flores submitted supports his claim that in addition to the
$3,231,084.00 damages he received in the jury trial of his copyright infringement claim
against Hallmark Design, which was in bankruptcy, he is entitled to receive $63,471,000.00
based on a proof of claim filed in the Hallmark Collection bankruptcy case.

The

Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which this court has adopted,
sets out grounds for that result.

160330.1209 P:\CASES\2014\14-2702\amended.order.adopting.m&r.3.30.wpd

This court denies Kipp Flores’s motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 82),
overrules his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
(Docket Entry No. 109), and grants Mid-Continent’s cross-motion for summary judgment
(Docket Entry No. 91). The motion to exclude expert declaration (Docket Entry No. 96) is
denied as moot. The motion to submit additional authority (Docket Entry No. 106), is
granted. Final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice is entered by separate order.
SIGNED on March 30, 2016, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

160330.1209 P:\CASES\2014\14-2702\amended.order.adopting.m&r.3.30.wpd

2