Quinn v. Pipe & Piping Supplies (U.S.A.), Ltd et al

Filing 66

ORDER vacating and remanding to the magistrate judge for reconsideration, the ruling on Defendants' motions regarding the filing of a counter-complaint; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Qui n n v. Pipe & Piping Supplies (U.S.A.), Ltd. et al

Do c. 66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION

J A M IE QUINN, P l a in tif f , F ile No. 2:09-CV-161 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL P IP E & PILING SUPPLIES (U.S.A.) LTD, a foreign profit corporation, and RON G R IF F IT H , an individual, D e f e n d a n ts . / ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Defendants' appeal from the Magistrate Judge's Ju ly 30, 2010, order denying Defendants' motions regarding the filing of a counterco m p lain t. (Dkt. No. 61.) Defendants contend that the sole basis for the Magistrate Judge's r u lin g , the abrogation of Rule 13(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is erroneous, b e c au s e it is at least arguable that the December 1, 2009, rule changes should not be applied to pending cases absent a specific finding that doing so would be just and practicable. The Supreme Court provided that the 2009 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil P r o c e d u re "`shall take effect on December 1, 2009, and shall govern in all proceedings there af ter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.'" Y o s t v. Stout, 607 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting U.S. Orders 2009-17 (March 2 6 , 2009)). It was not improper for the Magistrate Judge to apply the 2009 amendments to

Dockets.Justia.com

th is pending case. Nevertheless, it appears to the Court that although Defendants cited Rule 1 3 as the basis for their motion, their motion should have been considered pursuant to Rule 1 5 . The Court has referred non-dispositive pretrial matters concerning case management to th e Magistrate Judge, and the Court declines to make a determination, in the first instance, w h e th e r Defendants should be granted leave to file a counter-complaint pursuant to Rule 15. A c c o r d i n g l y, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's ruling on Defendants' m o t io n s regarding the filing of a counter-complaint (Dkt. No. 61) is VACATED and R E M A N D E D to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal R u le s of Civil Procedure.

Dated: August 25, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2