IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al

Filing 324

ORDER: Lead Plaintiff's objection (Doc. No. [317) of Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel's July 11, 2018 Order is OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel's July 11, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 311 ) is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/24/2018. (las)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,

Civil No. 11-429 (DWF/HB)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

Best Buy Co., Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court upon Lead Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. No. 317) to
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel’s July 11, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 311).
oppose Lead Plaintiff’s objection.

Defendants

The Court must modify or set aside any portion of

the Magistrate Judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule 72.2(a).
“extremely deferential standard.”

See

This is an

Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d

1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Chakales v. Comm’r of

Internal Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States v. United
States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
In the July 11, 2018 Order, Magistrate Judge Noel denied Lead Plaintiff’s motion
to file a second amended complaint under Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 15(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In short, the Magistrate Judge explained with respect to Rule

16(b)(4) that “neither newly discovered facts, a change in circumstance, or a change in
law justify Lead Plaintiff’s belated motion for leave to amend.”

(Doc. No. 311 at 23.)

In addition, in explaining why Lead Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend also fails to
satisfy the undue delay analysis under Rule 15(a)(2), the Magistrate Judge concluded that
Lead Plaintiff unduly delayed in moving for leave to amend and that, in addition to undue
delay, granting the motion for leave to amend would prejudice Defendants.
at 24-25.)

(Id.

The Magistrate Judge also discussed why the law of the case doctrine also

warrants the denial of Lead Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend because the proposed
second amended class complaint seeks to revive previously dismissed claims.
In its objection, Lead Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s order is both
clearly erroneous and contrary to law because Plaintiff satisfies both Rules 15 and 16.
Specifically, Lead Plaintiff argues that the proposed second amended complaint is based
upon newly discovered evidence produced after the motion deadline, good cause to
permit amendment exists, the law of the case doctrine does not foreclose amendment, and
only plaintiff and the proposed class have suffered prejudice.
After careful review, the Court denies Lead Plaintiff’s objection and affirms
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel’s July 11, 2018 Order in all respects.

The Magistrate

Judge correctly found that there was no justification for Lead Plaintiff’s delay in seeking
to amend the complaint and that an amendment would prejudice Defendants.

Lead

Plaintiff has not established that the Magistrate Judge’s decision is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Lead Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. No. [317) of Magistrate Judge Franklin L.

Noel’s July 11, 2018 Order is OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel’s July 11, 2018 Order (Doc. No. [311]) is

AFFIRMED.

Dated: August 24, 2018

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3