Summary
discussing this distinction and the nature of “an action” under Rule 41
Summary of this case from C.H. Robinson Worldwide v. Traffic Tech, Inc.Opinion
Civil No. 09-1757 (JRT/RLE).
March 9, 2010
Christopher Larus, Damien Riehl, and Kimberly Miller, ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER CIRESI LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for plaintiffs.
Amy Vandamme, Melanie Reichenberger, and Richard Marschall, MICHAEL BEST FRIEDRICH, LLP, Milwaukee, WI J. Donald Best and John Scheller, MICHAEL BEST FRIEDRICH, LLP, Madison, WI; Scott Smith, NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA, Minneapolis, MN, for defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson, dated February 10, 2010, and no objections having been filed to said Report and Recommendation.
Based upon the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Count I of its Complaint, with prejudice, as well as the Defendants' Counterclaims regarding the `067 Patent, is granted [Docket No. 51], but the dismissal of the Defendants' referenced Counterclaims are without prejudice.
2. The Defendants' informal Motion for an award of attorneys' fees is denied.