Moline Machinery v. Pillsbury Co.

Full title: Moline Machinery, LTD., Plaintiff, v. The Pillsbury Co., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Mar 25, 2003

Civ. No. 00-2352 (MJD/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2003)

Opinion

Civ. No. 00-2352 (MJD/RLE)

March 25, 2003

ORDER

MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge

The above entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond Erickson, dated February 14, 2003. The Defendant objects to the Magistrate's recommendation to grant Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. The Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate's recommendation to deny its informal Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees.

Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); Local Rule 72.1(c). Based on its review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation dated February 14, 2003.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

1. Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Docket No. 45) is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket No. 45) is deferred to the State Court upon remand.

3. Plaintiffs informal Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees is DENIED.

4. The parties Cross . . . Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket Nos. 54 59) are deferred to the State Court upon remand.