Summary
dismissing class action complaint where discovery would merely “serve as a fishing expedition during which Plaintiff searches for evidence in support of facts he has not yet pleaded.”
Summary of this case from Tomey v. Dizinno (In re Dizinno)Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-649.
March 31, 2009
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2009, after the plaintiffs, Douglas M. Hodczak, James M. Crossman, Thomas J. Magdic and Joseph A. Litvik, filed the above-captioned case on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and after defendant, Latrobe Specialty Steel Company, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on All Collective Action Claims, and after plaintiffs filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule 56(f) to Deny or Continue Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on All Collective Action Claims, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties until March 19, 2009, to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by defendant and the response thereto submitted by plaintiffs, and upon independent review of the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to deny summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) on all Collective Action Claims [Dkt. 42] is GRANTED, and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on All Collective Action Claims [Dkt. 15] is, in fact, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the parties desire to appeal from this Order they must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed.R.App.P.