Louisiana State et al v. AAA Insurance et al

Filing 505

ORDER denying 456 MOTION for REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 7/3/13. (sek, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA STATE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, EX REL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 07-5528

AAA INSURANCE, ET AL

SECTION: “J”(2)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Appeal from the Magistrate
Judge's April 22, 2013 Severance Order (Rec. Doc. 456), filed by
American National Property and Casualty Company, American
National General Insurance Company, and ANPAC Louisiana Insurance
Company (collectively "ANPAC Defendants"). Plaintiff, the State
of Louisiana, has filed an opposition (Rec. Doc. 469), to which
the ANPAC Defendants have replied. (Rec. Doc. 478) The motion was
set for hearing on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., on the
briefs.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
apply to the district court for review of a magistrate judge’s

order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter within 14 days of
service with the order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a). With respect to a non-dispositive pre-trial order, like
the severance order in this case, the district court must set
aside or modify any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); Steward v. Mississippi, No. 07-184, 2007 WL 4375210, at
*1-2 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 12, 2007) (applying the "clearly erroneous
or contrary to law" standard in the context of a motion for
review of a Magistrate Judge's decision to sever a plaintiff's
claim and require that plaintiff to file an amended complaint).
Having independently considered the motion, the parties’
memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge’s severance order was not "clearly
erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the ANPAC Defendants’ Motion for Review
of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Rec. Doc. 456) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of July, 2013.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2