Sinegal v. P N K (Lake Charles) L L C

W.D. Louisiana

Sinegal v. P N K (Lake Charles) L L C

DecidedJuly 9, 2019

Docket2:18-cv-01157

StatusUnknown

This text of Sinegal v. P N K (Lake Charles) L L C (Sinegal v. P N K (Lake Charles) L L C) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sinegal v. P N K (Lake Charles) L L C, (W.D. La. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ANASTASIA SINEGAL ET AL CASE NO. 2:18-CV-01157 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS PNK (LAKE CHARLES) LL C MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN KAY

JUDGMENT Presently before the court is the Report and Recommendation [doc. 28] of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs have objected to the Report and Recommendation on the basis that the Magistrate Judge improperly relied upon certain evidence which Plaintiffs had moved to strike. After an independent review of the record, a de novo determination of the issues and consideration of the objection filed, the Court determines that the findings in the Report and Recommendation are correct. While Plaintiffs had filed a Motion to Strike [doc. 14] certain evidence submitted by Defendant, the Magistrate Judge was correct in reviewing that evidence in her analysis of the issues presented. The Fifth Circuit has stated that “there are cases, hopefully few in number, in which a plaintiff has stated a claim, but has misstated or omitted discrete facts that would determine the propriety of joinder, In such cases, the district court may, in its discretion, pierce the pleadings and conduct a summary inguiry.”! The Court reviewed the evidence submitted by Defendant and finds that it clearly reveals that the limited factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ complaint which might give rise to a claim against Cheryl Tezeno were incorrect. As such,

Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5" Cir. 2004),

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; rt FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Remand [doc. 9] filed by Plaintiffs is DENIED, and that all claims against Cheryl Tezeno be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [doc. 14] is DENIED. THUS DONE in Chambers on this day of July, 2019.

—_— Robert R. Summerhays United States District Judge \

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ANASTASIA SINEGAL ET AL CASE NO. 2:18-CV-01157 VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS PNK (LAKE CHARLES) LL C MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN KAY

JUDGMENT Presently before the court is the Report and Recommendation [doc. 28] of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs have objected to the Report and Recommendation on the basis that the Magistrate Judge improperly relied upon certain evidence which Plaintiffs had moved to strike. After an independent review of the record, a de novo determination of the issues and consideration of the objection filed, the Court determines that the findings in the Report and Recommendation are correct. While Plaintiffs had filed a Motion to Strike [doc. 14] certain evidence submitted by Defendant, the Magistrate Judge was correct in reviewing that evidence in her analysis of the issues presented. The Fifth Circuit has stated that “there are cases, hopefully few in number, in which a plaintiff has stated a claim, but has misstated or omitted discrete facts that would determine the propriety of joinder, In such cases, the district court may, in its discretion, pierce the pleadings and conduct a summary inguiry.”! The Court reviewed the evidence submitted by Defendant and finds that it clearly reveals that the limited factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ complaint which might give rise to a claim against Cheryl Tezeno were incorrect. As such,

Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5" Cir. 2004),

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation; rt FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Remand [doc. 9] filed by Plaintiffs is DENIED, and that all claims against Cheryl Tezeno be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike [doc. 14] is DENIED. THUS DONE in Chambers on this day of July, 2019.

—_— Robert R. Summerhays United States District Judge \

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sinegal v. P N K (Lake Charles) L L C, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinegal-v-p-n-k-lake-charles-l-l-c-lawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack