Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-052 - Bowell et al v. Mowery Construction, Inc. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-052 - Bowell et al v. Mowery Construction, Inc. et al
November 9, 2016
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANT HAAS CABINET COMPANY, INC.S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 10) BE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS SET FORTH HEREIN (Objections to R&R due by 11/28/2016), ***ORDER AND ENTRY DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLEADINGSAccordingly, based upon the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: (1) Defendant Haass motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (doc. 10) be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (2) Plaintiffs OCSPA claims, based upon Defendant Haass alleged failure to repair a defect covered by warranty, remain pending;(3) Plaintiffs OCSPA claims, based upon Defendant Haass failure to maintain a statutory agent in Ohio for service of process, be DISMISSED;(3) Plaintiffs claims under Ohio Rev. Code § 4722.01, the Ohio Repair Rule, and/or for fraud and deceit be DISMISSED; and(4) Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract and/or breach of an implied-in-fact contract be DISMISSED.Insofar as Plaintiffs request leave to file an amended complaint, such request is DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 11/9/2016. (srb)
November 30, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 - the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full, Defendant Haas Cabinet Company, Inc.'s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings 10 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, Plaintiffs' OCSPA claims based upon failure to repair a defect covered by warranty remain pending, Plaintiffs' OCSPA claims based upon Haas's failure to maintain a statutory agent in Ohio are DISMISSED, Plaintiffs' claims under Ohio Rev. Code § 4722.01, Ohio Admin. Code § 109:4-3-05, and for fraud and deceit are DISMISSED; and Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and/or breach of an implied-in-fact contract are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-30-2016. (de)
March 1, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL -The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 45 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if necessary. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 3-1-2017. (de)