From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Automated Transactions v. First Niagara Fin. Group

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Feb 11, 2011
10-CV-407 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2011)

Opinion

10-CV-407.

February 11, 2011


ORDER


This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 30, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On August 31, 2010, Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint be denied, without prejudice to a later motion for summary judgment.

Defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on September 17, 2010 and plaintiff filed a response thereto. The Court deemed oral argument on defendants' objections to be unnecessary.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is denied, without prejudice to a later motion for summary judgment.

The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 11, 2011


Summaries of

Automated Transactions v. First Niagara Fin. Group

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Feb 11, 2011
10-CV-407 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2011)
Case details for

Automated Transactions v. First Niagara Fin. Group

Case Details

Full title:AUTOMATED TRANSACTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Feb 11, 2011

Citations

10-CV-407 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2011)

Citing Cases

Pado, Inc. v. SG Trademark Holding

But "in this Circuit at least," it "is not essential to a claim of induced infringement" that the defendant…