Frank Krammes Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Letourneau Enterprises, LLC

M.D. Pennsylvania

Frank Krammes Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Letourneau Enterprises, LLC

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania·Decided August 11, 2023·No. 3:18-cv-01914-RDM·Unknown

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANK KRAMMES TIMBER : . HARVESTING, INC., : Plaintiff : 3:18-CV-1914 : (JUDGE MARIANI) Vv. : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) FILED SCRANTO LETOURNEAU ENTERPRISES, LLC, : AUG 11 2023 Defendants. : rena DEP LEF J, ORDER 4 “| □ □ AND NOW, THIS _/ / DAY OF AUGUST, 2023, upon review of Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 40), Plaintiff's objections thereto (Doc. 41), and all relevant briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 40) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein. 2. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 41) are OVERRULED. '

' The Court agrees with Judge Carlson’s legal and factual analysis in its entirety. The R&R is narrowly focused, and properly so, on the questions framed by the Court in its previous Memorandum Opinions (Docs. 22, 28) regarding Defendant's first and second motions to dismiss (Docs. 2, 25). Plaintiffs objections generally either reiterate arguments previously raised and considered by Judge Carlson, or attempt fo introduce entirely new assertions or arguments not suitable for consideration at this stage. See Piligian v. Icahn Sch. of Med. at Mount Sinai, 490 F. Supp. 3d 707, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Further, several of Plaintiff's objections are mere disagreements with Judge Carlson’s analysis and are unsupported by persuasive authority or argument. □ Notably, this Court expressly indicated in a previous Memorandum Opinion that discovery was necessary to “provide clarity on the alleged benefits Defendants received,” and strongly implied the same with respect to the timing of Plaintiff's yard development. (Doc. 28 at 13, 16.) Itis evident that Plaintiff largely, if not completely, declined the opportunity to pursue this discovery. Instead, Plaintiff urges the Court fo find a genuine dispute of material fact arising out of “inferences” in its favor, while, at the same time, plainly unable to point to evidence that supports its claims. (See, e.g., Doc. 41 at 5.) In summary, having reviewed the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objected, the Court independently reaches the same conclusions as Judge Carlson.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

A 1 9 ( ZV \ANM 7 Robert D.\Mariani United States District Judge

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

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANK KRAMMES TIMBER : . HARVESTING, INC., : Plaintiff : 3:18-CV-1914 : (JUDGE MARIANI) Vv. : (Magistrate Judge Carlson) FILED SCRANTO LETOURNEAU ENTERPRISES, LLC, : AUG 11 2023 Defendants. : rena DEP LEF J, ORDER 4 “| □ □ AND NOW, THIS _/ / DAY OF AUGUST, 2023, upon review of Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 40), Plaintiff's objections thereto (Doc. 41), and all relevant briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 40) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein. 2. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 41) are OVERRULED. '

' The Court agrees with Judge Carlson’s legal and factual analysis in its entirety. The R&R is narrowly focused, and properly so, on the questions framed by the Court in its previous Memorandum Opinions (Docs. 22, 28) regarding Defendant's first and second motions to dismiss (Docs. 2, 25). Plaintiffs objections generally either reiterate arguments previously raised and considered by Judge Carlson, or attempt fo introduce entirely new assertions or arguments not suitable for consideration at this stage. See Piligian v. Icahn Sch. of Med. at Mount Sinai, 490 F. Supp. 3d 707, 716 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Further, several of Plaintiff's objections are mere disagreements with Judge Carlson’s analysis and are unsupported by persuasive authority or argument. □ Notably, this Court expressly indicated in a previous Memorandum Opinion that discovery was necessary to “provide clarity on the alleged benefits Defendants received,” and strongly implied the same with respect to the timing of Plaintiff's yard development. (Doc. 28 at 13, 16.) Itis evident that Plaintiff largely, if not completely, declined the opportunity to pursue this discovery. Instead, Plaintiff urges the Court fo find a genuine dispute of material fact arising out of “inferences” in its favor, while, at the same time, plainly unable to point to evidence that supports its claims. (See, e.g., Doc. 41 at 5.) In summary, having reviewed the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objected, the Court independently reaches the same conclusions as Judge Carlson.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

A 1 9 ( ZV \ANM 7 Robert D.\Mariani United States District Judge

Frank Krammes Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Letourneau Enterprises, LLC, (M.D. Pa. 2023).

Pincite

Frank Krammes Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Letourneau Enterprises, LLC (Frank Krammes Timber Harvesting, Inc. v. Letourneau Enterprises, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.