The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation

E.D. Virginia

The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation

DecidedJune 14, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-00351

StatusUnknown

This text of The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation (The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

FION RT HTHE EU ENAITSETDE RSNTA DTIESTS RDIICSTT ROIFC VT ICROGUINRITA NorfolkDivision THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2:20CV351(RCY) ) TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, ) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) CHENG-CHUNG WANG, ) Counter-Plaintiff. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter, which was recently reassigned to the undersigned, is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard. (R&R, ECF No. 275.) The Court referred The Coleman Company’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees to Magistrate Judge Leonard because he has exclusively handled the parties’ relevant discovery disputes, which served as the basis for Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Accordingly, on May 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leonard entered the R&R wherein he recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Court advised the parties that they could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the R&R. The parties did not file objections. “The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this [C]ourt. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this [C]ourt.” Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues — factual and legal — that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (footnote omitted). In the absence of a specific written objection, the Court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond vy. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). There being no objections, and the Court having determined that the R&R is correct on the merits, the R&R (ECF No. 275) will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Norfolk, Virginia / ok Date: June 14, 2022 Roderick C. Youre United States Distric{ Jyige

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

FION RT HTHE EU ENAITSETDE RSNTA DTIESTS RDIICSTT ROIFC VT ICROGUINRITA NorfolkDivision THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC., ) Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 2:20CV351(RCY) ) TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, ) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, ) ) and ) ) CHENG-CHUNG WANG, ) Counter-Plaintiff. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter, which was recently reassigned to the undersigned, is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard. (R&R, ECF No. 275.) The Court referred The Coleman Company’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees to Magistrate Judge Leonard because he has exclusively handled the parties’ relevant discovery disputes, which served as the basis for Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Accordingly, on May 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Leonard entered the R&R wherein he recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The Court advised the parties that they could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the R&R. The parties did not file objections. “The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this [C]ourt. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this [C]ourt.” Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408, 410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “The filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues — factual and legal — that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (footnote omitted). In the absence of a specific written objection, the Court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond vy. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). There being no objections, and the Court having determined that the R&R is correct on the merits, the R&R (ECF No. 275) will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Norfolk, Virginia / ok Date: June 14, 2022 Roderick C. Youre United States Distric{ Jyige

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Team Worldwide Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-coleman-company-inc-v-team-worldwide-corporation-vaed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack