Summary
rejecting an argument based on the potential future benefit that a party may receive because "to establish an unjust enrichment claim, it must be shown that benefit has already been conferred"
Summary of this case from PMX Jewels Ltd. v. Ruvanni Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-2104.
November 9, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On December 10, 2002, this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on October 7, 2005, recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counterclaims I and II filed by Plaintiffs (Doc. #75) be granted.
The parties were allowed (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on all parties. Objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation.
After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and objections thereto, the following order is entered: AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2005;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs is granted as to Counts I and II of the Amended Counterclaim;
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sensenich, dated October 7, 2005, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.