Orbital ATK, Inc. et al v. Heckler & Koch GmbH

Filing 75

ORDER denying 72 ORDER RE: APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 11/6/2017. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 17-250(DSD/FLN)
Orbital ATK, Inc. a Delaware
corporation, and Alliant Techsystems
Operations LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

Heckler & Koch GmbH, a German
limited liability company,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the appeal by defendant
Heckler & Koch GmbH of Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel’s October
6, 2017, order denying its motion to stay proceedings pending
appeal (Order).

After a review of the Order, and based on the

file, record, and proceedings herein, the court denies the appeal.
The standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s order on nondispositive matters is “extremely deferential.”
Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D.
Minn. 1999).

The court will reverse such an order only if it is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D.
Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). “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) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).

“A decision is contrary to law when it

fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules
of procedure.”

Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254

F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
The court is satisfied that the magistrate judge properly
exercised its discretion in determining that the interests of
justice and judicial economy do not weigh in favor of a stay.

The

magistrate judge reasonably determined that defendant has not
established a likelihood of success on appeal or that it will
suffer irreparable harm if the stay is denied, and thus the Order
is not clearly erroneous in this regard. See McLeod v. Gen. Mills,
Inc., No. 15-494, 2015 WL 7428548, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2015)
(holding

that

the

court

assesses

the

following

factors

when

determining whether to issue a stay pending an appeal: “(1) the
likelihood that the stay applicant will succeed on the merits of
its appeal; (2) whether the denial of a stay will irreparably harm
the moving party; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially
injure the non-moving party; and (4) the public interest”).
Nor is the court able to determine that the magistrate judge
erred in determining that the law does not require an automatic
stay of this case pending appeal.

The court is constrained by the

standard of review, and its review is limited to determining
whether the magistrate judge’s ruling was contrary to law.

As set

forth in the Order, although the there is a split of authority on

2

this issue throughout the federal judiciary, the Eighth Circuit has
yet to decide the issue.

Under these circumstances, the court

cannot hold that the Order is contrary to law.

See Hormel Foods

Corp. v. Cereol, S.A., No. 01-2245, 2003 WL 21402601, at *2 (D.
Minn. June 16, 2003) (rejecting the argument that the court should
choose sides in a circuit split on an appeal of a magistrate
judge’s order because in that procedural context “the Court’s role
is not to decide which rule is more persuasive or appropriate”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal [ECF No.
72] is denied.
November 6, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

3