Hamilton County, IL et al v. Trinity Industries Inc. et al

Filing 160

ORDER AFFIRMING 148 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, DENYING 153 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by All Plaintiffs re 148 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Hamilton County, IL, St. Clair County, Mac on County, Illinois, and GRANTING 124 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Trinity Highway Products LLC, Trinity Industries Inc. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same at the close of the case. See Order for details.. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/10/17. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ILLINOIS AND
MACON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COUNTIES
IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 14-1320-DRH

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC., AND
TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, LLC,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is plaintiffs’ request to appeal and objections to the
Magistrate’s November 14, 2016, Memorandum and Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72 and Local Rule 73.1 (Doc. 153).

Specifically, plaintiff appeals Magistrate

Judge Williams Order denying plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint, citing
untimeliness and undue prejudice on defendants’ behalf (Doc. 148).

Plaintiffs

maintain that Magistrate Judge Williams erred in denying the motion to amend as
the written discovery is still occurring and that this “case is still in its initial stages.
(Doc. 153, p. 2). Obviously, defendants oppose plaintiffs’ request to appeal and
plaintiffs’ objections arguing that after two years of litigation plaintiffs are
attempting to file a brand new lawsuit disguised as an amended complaint (Doc.
156).

Based on the following, the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Williams’
Page 1 of 4

November 14, 2016 Memorandum and Order and denies plaintiffs’ appeal.
Rule 73.1(a) of the Southern District of Illinois provides:
(a)
Appeal of Non-Dispostive Matters – 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
Any party may appeal a Magistrate Judge’s order determining a
motion or matter within 14 days after issuance of a Magistrate Judge’s
order, unless a different time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or
a District Judge. The party shall file with the Clerk of the Court and
serve on all parties a written request for an appeal which shall
specifically designate the order or part of the order that the parties
wish the Court to reconsider. A District Judge shall reconsider the
matter and shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. A District Judge
may also reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a
Magistrate Judge under this rule.
Also, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the Court may modify or reverse
a magistrate judge on a non-dispostive issue upon a showing that the magistrate
judge’s decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.” Specifically, Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides:
Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a
party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and
decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required
proceedings, and when appropriate, issue a written order stating the
decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14
days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a
defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case
must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to the law.
A finding is clearly erroneous when “the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)(quoting United States v.
United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); See also Weeks v. Samsung
Page 2 of 4

Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997)(“The clear error
standard means that the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s ruling
only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made.”).
Here, the Court finds that Judge Williams’ ruling was neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law.

Magistrate Williams’ November 14, 2016

Memorandum and Order is well written and clearly sets out the reasons for his
ruling. After reviewing the scheduling orders and minute orders throughout the
record, the Court concludes, as Magistrate Judge Williams’ concluded, that the
motion to amend is untimely.

The record reveals that the discovery and the

litigation is really at the tail end and that plaintiffs did have this material for a
significant period of time. Thus, these new claims should have been raised much
earlier by plaintiffs. There is no reason for this Court to vacate Judge Williams’
Memorandum and Order.
Still unresolved is the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings
(Doc. 124).

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings as to Counts I and II of

plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and ask the Court to strike the punitive
damages claim in Count II (Doc. 124). 1 Plaintiffs basically concede the motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 135). 2 In light of the Court’s ruling supra and

1 Count I of the second amended complaint is for breach of implied warranties of merchantability
and fitness for a particular purpose and Count II of the second amended complaint is for violations
of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Doc. 85).
2 “Plaintiffs agree that they do not have standing to pursue a claim under the Illinois Consumer

Page 3 of 4

plaintiffs’ concession, the Court GRANTS the motion for judgment on the
pleadings. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Counts I and II of the second
amended complaint and strikes the claim for punitive damages contained in Count
II of the second amended complaint.
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Magistrate Judge Williams’ November 14,
2016 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 148), DENIES plaintiffs’ request to appeal
and objections to the Magistrate’s November 14, 2016 Memorandum and Order
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and Local Rule 73.1 (Doc. 153) and GRANTS
defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 124).

The Court

DISMISSES with prejudice Counts I and II of the second amended complaint and
STRIKES the claim for punitive damages in Count II of the second amended
complaint (Doc. 85).

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter

judgment reflecting the same as to Counts I and II of the second amended
complaint at the close of the case. Count III, unjust enrichment, and Count IV,
injunctive relief, remain pending in the second amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 10th day of January, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.01.10
15:25:05 -06'00'

United States District Judge

Fraud Act. … In regards to Defendants’ arguments related to Breach of Implied Warranties, Plaintiffs
have researched the issue and agree that the individual Plaintiffs in this action did not provide
Defendants with pre-suit notice on an alleged breach of warranty and dismissal is warranted.”
(Doc. 135).

Page 4 of 4