Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moskowitz v. American Savings Bank, F.S.B.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 26, 2017

CRAIG MOSKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Defendant.

         ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 38) AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANT AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B.'S MOTION FOR RULE 41(D) COSTS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (ECF NO. 36)

          Helen Gillmor, Understates District Judge.

         On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff Craig Moskowitz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Defendant American Savings Bank, F.S.B., Moskowitz v. American Savings Bank, F.S.B., Civ. No. 3:17-00307AWT.

         On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

         A month later, on June 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a nearly identical Complaint that asserted the same claims against the same Defendant in this District. (ECF No. 1).

         Defendant American Savings Bank, F.S.B. filed a Motion for Costs and Stay of Proceedings related to the District of Connecticut proceeding pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(d). (ECF No. 15).

         On October 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART DEFENDANT AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B.'S MOTION FOR RULE 41(d) COSTS AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. (ECF No. 36).

         On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. (ECF No. 38).

         On November 27, 2017, Defendant filed its Response. (ECF No. 39).

         Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 38) are OVERRULED.

         The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is ADOPTED.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) permits a district court judge to designate a magistrate judge to determine matters pending before the court and to submit a findings and recommendation to the district court judge. Any party may object to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 74.2.

         The district court judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the findings and recommendation to which a party properly objects and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation made by the magistrate judge. 28 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.