Orbital ATK, Inc. et al v. Heckler & Koch GmbH
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
Heckler & Koch GmbH, a German
limited liability company,
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
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.
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
Knutson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254
F.R.D. 553, 556 (D. Minn. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
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.
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)
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.
forth in the Order, although the there is a split of authority on
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?