Jiricko v. Frankenburg Jensen Law Firm et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 74 Report and Recommendations granting in part and denying in part 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: denying the Frankenburg Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadi ngs with respect to Plaintiff's fraud upon the court claim; Plaintiff's 1983, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against the Frankenburg Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 3/24/2017. (blh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
DR. MILOS JIRICKO,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKENBURG JENSEN LAW FIRM;
CAROLYN STEVENS JENSEN, lawyer,
JENIFER M. BRENNAN, lawyer, KEITH
KELLY, State Judge in his official and
personal capacity, HEATHER
BRERETON, Judge in her official and
personal capacity,

ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 23,
2017, REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Case No. 2:16-cv-132-DB
District Judge Dee Benson

Defendants.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate
Judge Evelyn J. Furse on February 23, 2017, recommending that the district court dismiss
without prejudice Plaintiff’s §1983, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction
of emotional distress claims against Frankenburg Jensen, PLLC, Carolyn Stevens Jensen, and
Jennifer M. Brennan (collectively, the “Frankburg Defendants”) for failure to state a claim upon
which the district court can grant relief, and denying the Frankenburg Defendants’ motion for
judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiff’s fraud upon the court claim. (Dkt. No. 74.)
The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Order, primarily asserting that the state
court action from which his allegations arise was not a valid judicial proceeding for which the
judicial proceedings privilege would apply.

De novo review, including a review of the record that was before the magistrate judge
and the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation, has been completed. The court
agrees with the reasoning and assessment of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff’s Objection does not
alter that assessment, as Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that would plausibly support his claim
that the judicial proceedings privilege does not apply to the state court proceedings at issue here.
The February 23, 2017, Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Furse is hereby
ADOPTED and Plaintiff’s §1983, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress claims against the Frankenburg Defendants are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson
United States District Judge

2