From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maine
Aug 14, 2002
224 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Me. 2002)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 02-50-P-H

August 14, 2002

Todd S. Holbrook, Esq., Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer, Nelson, Portland, for Pearl Investments LLC, plaintiffs.

Robert H. Stier, Pierce, Atwood, Portland, for Standard I/O Inc, Jesse Chunn, defendants.


ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE


The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court on July 11, 2002, with copies to counsel, his Recommended Decision on Motion of A.B. Watley, Inc. to Dismiss. The third-party plaintiff Jesse Chunn filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on July 26, 2002. Neither party has requested oral argument.

I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended

Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. Chunn's request for discovery on jurisdiction is DENIED because he has made no showing that it would be useful.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The motion of A.B. Watley, Inc. to dismiss the claims asserted against it in the third-party complaint is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maine
Aug 14, 2002
224 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Me. 2002)
Case details for

Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PEARL INVESTMENTS, LLC, PLAINTIFF v. STANDARD I/O, INC. AND JESSE CHUNN…

Court:United States District Court, D. Maine

Date published: Aug 14, 2002

Citations

224 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Me. 2002)

Citing Cases

Interface Group-Massachusetts v. Rosen

Specifically, the plaintiff has not shown that the tortious interference claim underlying this litigation…