Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brandenburg v. Cousin Vinny's Pizza

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

October 24, 2017

THOMAS BRANDENBURG, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COUSIN VINNY'S PIZZA, et al., Defendants.

          Andrew R. Biller Paul M. De Marco Andrew P. Kimble Markovits, Stock & De Marco LLC Counsel for Plaintiffs.

          Samir B. Dahman Trial Attorney Alexis V. Preskar Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP Ghassan J. Deek Deek Law, LLC Counsel for Defendants Cousin Vinny's Pizza, LLC, CVP17, LLC, Cousin Vinny's Pizzeria, L.L.C., Cousin Vinny's Pizza #9 LLC, Third Day Pizzeria, LLC, R&M Pizzeria, LLC, CVP014 LLC, CVP 16 LLC, CVP18 LLC, CVP19 LLC, CVP DNC LLC, CVP Royality LLC, Dough Boy Fresh LLC, CVP Dough LLC, CVP Dough 2, LLC, MGL Pizza, LLC, CVP 10, Inc., and Mo Rashad.

          Walter H. Rice District Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION[1] THAT THE PARTIES AGREED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT BE GRANTED

          Michael J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge.

         This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for contempt. Doc. 34. Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion (doc. 44) and, thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a reply (doc. 49). On August 7, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion. See docs. 50, 53. Subsequent to the Court's hearing on Plaintiffs' motion, the parties conferred and have worked collaboratively, in good faith, to address the discovery concerns presented in Plaintiffs' motion for contempt. The work of counsel in this regard should be applauded and demonstrates the professionalism and civility the Court expects of litigants and attorneys practicing before the Court. In an effort to resolve the outstanding issues presented in Plaintiffs' motion, the parties have conferred and negotiated terms of a proposed order for the Court's consideration (see Exhibit A, attached). The undersigned has carefully reviewed the parties' proposed agreed Order and RECOMMENDS that it be adopted.

         NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

         Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court's CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a showing of good cause.

         Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs.

         A party may respond to another party's objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court's CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d).

         Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

         EXHIBIT A

         AGREED ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

         This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt (Doc. 34) (the “Motion”). In an effort to discover the facts concerning the destruction of mileage-related data in Defendants' possession and in the hope that discovering such facts will help to resolve or obviate the need for resolving issues raised in the Motion, the parties have submitted this Agreed Order to the Court. For good cause ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.