Bull Mountain Sanitation, LLC. v. Allied Waste Services of North America, L.L.C.

D. Montana

Bull Mountain Sanitation, LLC. v. Allied Waste Services of North America, L.L.C.

District Court, D. Montana·Decided August 19, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-00147·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eI L □ □ FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA pa □□ BILLINGS DIVISION as AUG 19 2019 Clerk, U S District Cc District Of Montan BULL MOUNTAIN SANITATION, Billings LLC, CV 18-147-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING Vs. MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS . AND RECOMMENDATIONS ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and BAYSIDE DISPOSAL, INC., Defendants.

The Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 9, 2018. (Doc. 11.) The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on July 31, 2019. (Doc. 23.) The Magistrate recommended the Defendants’ motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. 23 at 1-2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court reviews the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that the Magistrate committed clear error. IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 23) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is DENIED as to Bull Mountain’s intentional interference with contract claims (Counts One and Four); 2. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is DENIED as to Bull Mountain’s abuse of process claims (Counts Two and Five); and 3. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is GRANTED without prejudice as to Bull Mountain’s malicious prosecution claim against Republic (Count Three), and GRANTED with prejudice as to Bull Mountain’s malicious prosecution claim against Bayside (Count Six).

YA DATED this day of August, 2019.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eI L □ □ FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA pa □□ BILLINGS DIVISION as AUG 19 2019 Clerk, U S District Cc District Of Montan BULL MOUNTAIN SANITATION, Billings LLC, CV 18-147-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING Vs. MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS . AND RECOMMENDATIONS ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and BAYSIDE DISPOSAL, INC., Defendants.

The Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 9, 2018. (Doc. 11.) The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on July 31, 2019. (Doc. 23.) The Magistrate recommended the Defendants’ motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc. 23 at 1-2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court reviews the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that the Magistrate committed clear error. IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 23) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is DENIED as to Bull Mountain’s intentional interference with contract claims (Counts One and Four); 2. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is DENIED as to Bull Mountain’s abuse of process claims (Counts Two and Five); and 3. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 11) is GRANTED without prejudice as to Bull Mountain’s malicious prosecution claim against Republic (Count Three), and GRANTED with prejudice as to Bull Mountain’s malicious prosecution claim against Bayside (Count Six).

YA DATED this day of August, 2019.

SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Bull Mountain Sanitation, LLC. v. Allied Waste Services of North America, L.L.C., (D. Mont. 2019).

Pincite

Bull Mountain Sanitation, LLC. v. Allied Waste Services of North America, L.L.C. (Bull Mountain Sanitation, LLC. v. Allied Waste Services of North America, L.L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related