Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:99-CV-2147-M.
September 24, 2001.
ORDER
Before the Court is the June 25, 2001 Opinion of United States Magistrate Judge Jane Boyle containing her findings, conclusions and recommendation on Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the "Opinion"). Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants filed objections on July 5, 2001 to the Opinion and Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs filed objections on July 9, 2001.
After reviewing the Opinion and conducting a de novo review of those findings and conclusions to which objections have been made, I am of the opinion that the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the Court, except to the extent stated below:
1. With respect to the footnote on page 3 of the Opinion, this Court acknowledges that certain provisions of the Distributorship Agreement may survive its termination.
2. The name "Satis" on the fourth line of page 5 of the Opinion should read "Optovision."
3. The background facts in the Opinion are drawn from the First Amended Complaint to the extent not inconsistent with the Second Amended Complaint.
4. The finding at page 2 of the Opinion regarding what is confidential and proprietary and what Satis requires of its customers is a statement as to what Satis contends, not a finding on the merits.
5. The reference at page 3 of the Opinion to the forming of a wholly owned subsidiary should have been to Satis Vacuum A.G., rather than Satis A.G.
6. With respect to the Custom Eyes issue described on page 24 of the Opinion, this Court acknowledges that the question of whether the $157,081.70 was owed to Satis is disputed by Optovision, and that it is the prospect of a finding supporting the creation of a resulting trust which results in a determination that the release does not necessarily bar the claim.
7. Any ground for summary judgment sought by the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs and not fully described in the Opinion is DENIED.