Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 2, 2018

Otterness v. Andersen Windows Corporation

Judge
Nancy Brasel
Docket
0:17-cv-04767
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Otterness v. Andersen Windows Corporation, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation, granted Menk & Menk’s dismissal motion, and dismissed three defendants without prejudice.

Who this affects

Einar J. Otterness, Menk & Menk Law Firm, The Hartford, and Old Republic Insurance Company; the order does not state a disposition for Andersen Windows Corporation.

What happened

In Otterness v. Andersen Windows Corporation, Einar J. Otterness sued Andersen Windows Corporation, The Hartford, Old Republic Insurance Company, and Menk & Menk Law Firm. The opinion does not describe the claims.

The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation. It granted Menk & Menk Law Firm’s motion to dismiss and dismissed that firm without prejudice. It also dismissed The Hartford and Old Republic Insurance Company without prejudice because Otterness failed to pursue the case. The order does not state a disposition for Andersen Windows Corporation.

Because no one objected to the recommendation, Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright reviewed it for clear error and found none. She adopted the recommendation and entered the dismissals.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Otterness v. Andersen Windows Corporation · No. 0:17-cv-04767
Judge
Nancy Brasel
Date
Aug. 2, 2018

Background

Einar J. Otterness brought this case against Andersen Windows Corporation; The Hartford; Old Republic Insurance Company, administered by Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.; and Menk & Menk Law Firm. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the factual allegations.

United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued a Report and Recommendation on June 6, 2018. No party filed objections.

Court’s review

When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews a magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.

Rulings

The court adopted the June 6, 2018 Report and Recommendation. It granted Menk & Menk Law Firm’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Menk & Menk Law Firm without prejudice.

The court also dismissed The Hartford without prejudice based on Otterness’s failure to prosecute, meaning his failure to move the case forward. It dismissed Old Republic Insurance Company without prejudice on the same basis. The order does not state a disposition for Andersen Windows Corporation.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.