Smash Technology et al v. Smash Solutions et al
ORDER ADOPTING 108 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 50 Amended Complaint (dismissed with prejudice); 59 Counterclaim (first and second causes of action denied/dismissed); 101 Motion for Summary Judgment, Motion for Sanction s (granted in part/denied in part), and 103 Motion for Summary Judgment (granted). Smash Solution's remaining counterclaims and Jerry Ulrich's counterclaims are not affected by this order and continue to be asserted against Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 7/15/21 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SMASH TECHNOLOGY, LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company; and MICHAEL
ALEXANDER, an individual,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &
Case No. 2:19-cv-105-TC-JCB
SMASH SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; JERRY “J.J.”
ULRICH, an individual; SMASH
INNOVATIONS, LLC, a Wyoming limited
liability company; and FERACODE, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company,
Defendants filed motions for summary judgment and for sanctions, and the court referred
those motions to United States Magistrate Judge Jared Bennett under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b)(1). On May 7, 2021, Judge Bennett issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 108), and the parties had fourteen days to file objections
to the R&R. No party filed an objection.
As required by Rule 59(b)(3), the court must apply a de novo standard of review to
determine whether the recommendation is correct. Now, having considered the R&R and
Defendants’ motions, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation and ORDERS as
1. The Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions filed by the Smash
Solutions Defendants (Smash Solutions LLC, Jerry Ulrich, and Smash Innovations
LLC) (ECF No. 101) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, the court orders that:
a. Smash Solutions Defendants’ request for sanctions under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) is granted.
b. Smash Solutions Defendants’ request for dismissal with prejudice of
Plaintiffs’ claims against them (Claims One through Twelve of the Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 50)) is granted.
c. Smash Solutions’ request for a declaratory judgment (set forth in Smash
Solutions’ First Cause of Action in its Amended Counterclaim (ECF No. 59))
d. Smash Solutions’ Second Cause of Action in its Amended Counterclaim
(“Injunctive Relief”) is dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No. 50) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. Defendant Feracode, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Sanctions (ECF
No. 103) is GRANTED.
4. Defendant Smash Solutions, LLC’s remaining counterclaims (the Third, Fourth,
Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action in ECF No. 59) and Defendant Jerry Ulrich’s
counterclaims (ECF No. 60) are not affected by this order and continue to be asserted
DATED this 15th day of July, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
U.S. District Court Judge
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?