United States v. Yennie
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:18-cv-03268
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In United States v. Yennie, Judge Wright adopted the recommendation and denied Joseph and Sheila Yennie’s motions to dismiss.
The order affects defendants Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie by denying their motions to dismiss and overruling their objections; it allows the United States’ action to continue.
What happened
In United States v. Yennie, the United States asked the court to reject motions to dismiss filed by Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau recommended denying those motions.
The defendants objected to the recommendation. The district court concluded that the objections lacked sufficient specificity or legal merit and found no clear error or legal problem in the recommendation.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled the objections, adopted the recommendation, and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The order also addressed jurisdiction, venue, the sufficiency of the United States’ claim, and Sheila Yennie’s request as a possible summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- United States v. Yennie · No. 0:18-cv-03268
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- July 24, 2019
Background
The United States is the plaintiff, and Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie are defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motions be denied.
Court’s analysis
The district court reviewed the defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation. It concluded that the objections lacked sufficient specificity or legal merit. The court also found that the Report and Recommendation was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
The adopted recommendation determined that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority over the type of dispute; personal jurisdiction over Joseph Yennie; and proper venue in the District of Minnesota. It also determined that the United States had not failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. To the extent Sheila Yennie’s motion was treated as a motion for summary judgment, the recommendation concluded that disputed material facts prevented summary judgment in her favor.
Ruling
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Joseph Yennie’s and Sheila Yennie’s objections, adopted the April 30, 2019 Report and Recommendation, and denied the motions to dismiss filed by Joseph H. Yennie and Sheila A. Yennie.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.