From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kascsak v. Velasco

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
Apr 25, 2024
1:23-CV-1373-DII (W.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2024)

Opinion

1:23-CV-1373-DII

04-25-2024

MICHAEL KASCSAK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DAVIS VELASCO and EXPEDIA, INC., Defendants.


ORDER

ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell concerning Defendants Michael Davis Velasco and Expedia, Inc.'s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion To Dismiss Claims Against Defendant Michael Davis Velasco For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction And, (2) Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Claim For Failure To State A Claim, (Dkt. 12). (R. & R., Dkt. 19). Both parties timely filed objections to the report and recommendation, (Pl. Obj., Dkt. 21; Def. Obj., Dkt. 22); Plaintiff Michael Kascsak (“Plaintiff”) filed a response to Defendants' objections, (Pl. Resp., Dkt. 24), and a reply in support of his objections, (Dkt. 31); and Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's objections, (Def. Resp., Dkt. 29), and a reply in support of their objections, (Def. Reply, Dkt. 30).

A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Because the parties timely objected to the report and recommendation, the Court reviews the report and recommendation de novo. Having done so and for the reasons given in the report and recommendation, the Court overrules the parties' objections and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell, (Dkt. 19), is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 12), is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim against Defendant Michael Davis Velasco and DENIED IN PART with respect to Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim against Defendant Expedia, Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Michael Davis Velasco is DISMISSED from this action for want of personal jurisdiction.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim against Defendant Expedia, Inc. is not dismissed at this time.


Summaries of

Kascsak v. Velasco

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
Apr 25, 2024
1:23-CV-1373-DII (W.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2024)
Case details for

Kascsak v. Velasco

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL KASCSAK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DAVIS VELASCO and EXPEDIA, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

Date published: Apr 25, 2024

Citations

1:23-CV-1373-DII (W.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2024)