Summary
In Pinckard v. Pinckard, 24 Ala. 250, the administrator was allowed from the common estate the fee of his attorney in contests with the heirs touching items of his account, although some items were not sustained, if he acted in good faith, with due diligence, and upon competent advice.
Summary of this case from Dent v. FoyOpinion
No. 1:12-CV-848-CL
10-19-2012
JOSEPH A. PINCKARD, Plaintiff, v. LISA LAUGHLAND-PINCKARD, Defendant.
ORDER
PANNER, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
Here, defendant objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Judge Clarke that exercising personal jurisdiction over defendant in this district is reasonable and complies with due process. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.
CONCLUSION
Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#7) is adopted. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (#3) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
OWEN M. PANNER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE