From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calsep, Inc. v. Intelligent Petroleum Software Sols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Dec 8, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-1118 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-1118

12-08-2020

CALSEP, INC. and CALSEP A/S, Plaintiffs, v. INTELLIGENT PETROLEUM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Pashupati Sah. (Docs. 238, 249). Plaintiff has also filed supplemental evidence in support of the Motion. (Docs. 260, 261). The pending Motion had been referred to Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo for a report and recommendation. On November 18, 2020, Judge Palermo issued the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 274), recommending that the Motion for Sanctions be denied without prejudice. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections were filed.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Docs. 238, 249) is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 8th day of December, 2020.

/s/_________

KEITH P. ELLISON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Calsep, Inc. v. Intelligent Petroleum Software Sols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Dec 8, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-1118 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020)
Case details for

Calsep, Inc. v. Intelligent Petroleum Software Sols.

Case Details

Full title:CALSEP, INC. and CALSEP A/S, Plaintiffs, v. INTELLIGENT PETROLEUM SOFTWARE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Date published: Dec 8, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-1118 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020)

Citing Cases

United States v. Mikulin

Under these circumstances, the requested Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions should be granted. See Calsep, Inc. v.…