From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pavecon Holding Co. v. Tuzinski

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Jun 9, 2017
Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-888 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 9, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-888

06-09-2017

PAVECON HOLDING CO., INC., ET AL. v. RICK W TUZINSKI, ET AL.


(Judge Mazzant/Judge Nowak) MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 24, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #52) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant Rick Tuzinski's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. #29) be denied and Defendant Kansas Asphalt, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending Outcome of Arbitration (Dkt. #30) be denied as moot.

Having received the report of the Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED Defendant Rick Tuzinski's Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. #29) is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant Kansas Asphalt, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending Outcome of Arbitration (Dkt. #30) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 9th day of June, 2017.

/s/_________

AMOS L. MAZZANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Pavecon Holding Co. v. Tuzinski

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Jun 9, 2017
Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-888 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 9, 2017)
Case details for

Pavecon Holding Co. v. Tuzinski

Case Details

Full title:PAVECON HOLDING CO., INC., ET AL. v. RICK W TUZINSKI, ET AL.

Court:United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 9, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-888 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 9, 2017)

Citing Cases

Maxxim Indus. U.S. II v. Tex. Chrome Transp.

But TCT has not articulated how this interest would be impaired if they are not joined in this suit. “Rule…