`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP
`[Lead Case]
`Case No. 2:15-cv-1278-JRG-RSP
`[Member Case]
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
`INC. & VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA CHATTANOOGA
`OPERATIONS, LLC.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`The Magistrate Judge’s Report recommended that Defendants Volkswagen Group of
`
`America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss Plaintiff Blitzsafe Texas, LLC’s First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim.
`
`(Dkt. No. 24 (2:15-cv-1278)) be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report found that the
`
`complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court
`
`in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`(2009).
`
`Defendants have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Court further finds
`
`there is no clear error in the Report. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983
`
`addition (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no
`
`clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citing Campbell v.
`
`United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
`
`the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 135 (2:15-cv-1274); Dkt. No. 27
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 145 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 5208
`
`(2:15-cv-1278)) and finds Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
`
`for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. No. 24 (2:15-cv-1278)) is DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`