Meek v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union
Meek v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on January 8, 1993. Defendants American Protective Services, Inc.
APS filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 22, 1994. Occidental filed a response on August 17, 1994.
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 the record in this case, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from counsel, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Heckman’s Report and Recommendation, the Court denies APS’s motion for summary judgment on the claims for defense and indemnification against Occidental, and grants Occidental’s cross-motion to dismiss the defense and indemnification claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Warren Earl MEEK and Lockie Meek v. OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 8-209, Defendants AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. and Thomas R. Moss, Third-Party v. WACKENHUT CORPORATION and Occidental Chemical Corporation, Durez Division, Third-Party
- Status
- Published