Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. Jones Helsley, PC et al

Filing 43

ORDER Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part 35 Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Hearing Defendants' Pending Motion to Stay, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/15/2010. (Jessen, A)

Carolina Casualty Insurance Company v. Jones Helsley, PC et al

Doc. 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In this action filed pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 16 Plaintiff Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (CCIC) seeks the Court's determination that 17 it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants in James A. Bratton and Bratton 18 Investments, LLC v. Timothy Jones, et al., Case No. 10CECG02212, a legal malpractice 19 action pending in Fresno County Superior Court (the "Underlying Action"). (ECF No. 1.) 20 Defendants have moved to stay all proceedings in this action pending resolution of the 21 Underlying Action. (ECF No. 29.) The Motion for Stay is scheduled to be heard by the 22 undersigned on December 10, 2010. (Id.) 23 On November 4, 2010, CCIC filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge hearing and 24 ruling on the Motion to Stay. (ECF No. 35.) CCIC argues that the District Judge should 25 rule on the pending Motion to Stay because the motion is "the functional equivalent of a 26 motion to dismiss CCIC's claim" and also because the Motion to Stay is similar to a motion 27 for injunctive relief which Magistrate Judges are precluded from hearing under 28 U.S.C. 28 v. JONES HELSLEY, PC, et al., (ECF No. 35) Defendants. / CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-916-LJO-MJS ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE H E A R I N G DEFENDANTS' PENDING MOTION TO STAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

636.1 (Id. at 2-4.) As CCIC notes, 28 U.S.C. § 636 addresses the jurisdiction and powers of United States Magistrate Judges. Because Plaintiff has declined to consent to the magistrate judge having plenary authority over this case (see ECF No. 34), the undersigned's power is confined to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1992). Section 636(b)(1)(A) provides that a Magistrate Judge may "hear and

determine" any pretrial matter except "a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment" amongst others. Pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B), a

magistrate judge may "conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact, and recommendations for the disposition" of the motions exempted in § 636(b)(1)(A). "The primary difference between subsections (1)(A) and (1)(B) is that the former allows the magistrate judge to `determine' the matter (subject to review of the district court for clear or legal error) while the latter allows the magistrate judge only to submit `proposed findings and recommendations' for the district court's de novo review." Reynaga, 971 F.2d at 416. The Ninth Circuit has held that, in certain circumstances, a magistrate judge is not empowered to decide a motion to stay. Id. at 417 (magistrate judge acted beyond his authority in granting a stay because it effectively denied the opposing party's injunctive relief); see also, Harrell v. Huskey, 980 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1992) (magistrate lacked authority to stay habeas action pending the exhaustion of remedies). In those cases, however, the magistrate judge was empowered to hold a hearing and submit proposed findings and recommendations to the district judge. Although the Court doubts that staying this case would be dispositive or have the effect of denying Plaintiff relief, the Court will err on the side of caution and submit proposed findings and recommendations to the district court so that the latter can make a determination on the motion to stay.
1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Disqualify the undersigned because of t h e undersigned's ties to m e m b e r s of the fam ily of one of the defense counsel. Because the Motion to D is q u a lif y is irrelevant to whether a m a g is tr a te judge has the authority to rule on a m o tio n to stay, the C o u r t will not address the disqualification issue in this Order.

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED to the extent that it seeks to have the assigned District Judge hear the Motion to Stay in the first instance; the Motion to Stay will be heard by the undersigned as previously noticed. Plaintiff's Objection is SUSTAINED to the extent that it seeks to have the District Judge rule on the Motion; the undersigned will submit findings and recommendation to the District Judge for a determination of the merits of the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ci4d6 November 15, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael J. Seng

-3-