The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge
On October 10, 2007, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed two Reports and Recommendations (#74, #75) in this case. On October 19, 2007, Defendant Mark Regel filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation (#76), with attached exhibits, and a Memorandum of Law in Support (#77). On October 25, 2007, Defendant Janice Blanchette filed Objections to Report and Recommendation (#78). Following this court's careful de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's reasoning and Defendants' Objections, this court agrees with and accepts the Judge Bernthal's Reports and Recommendations (#74, #75).
Both Defendant Regel and Defendant Blanchette have objected only to Judge Bernthal's recommendation that their Motions to Dismiss should be denied as to Count III of Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Complaint. This court has carefully reviewed Count III and concludes that it meets the standard set out by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Reports and Recommendations (#74, #75) are accepted by this court.
(2) Defendant Blanchette's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for a More Definite Statement (#50) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count II of Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Blanchette. Count I of Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. As to Count III of Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Complaint, Defendant Blanchette's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
(3) Defendant Regel's Motion to Dismiss (#55) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count I and Count II of Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Regel. As to Count III of Plaintiff's Corrected First Amended Complaint, Defendant Regel's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
(4) Plaintiff is allowed fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint.
(5) This court recognizes that, because Counts I and II have been dismissed, there is no basis for this court's jurisdiction over Count III, which is solely a state law claim. Therefore, if Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, this court directs her to allege the basis for federal jurisdiction over the state law claim in Count III. If no amended complaint is filed, this court will dismiss Count III for lack of jurisdiction.
(6) This case is referred to Judge Bernthal for further proceedings.
ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2007
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...