Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative, Inc. v. SuperValu Inc.
Filing
281
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that AFM/AFW objections (Filing No. 221 in Case No. 16cv466 and Filing No. 233 in Case No. 16cv465) are overruled. The Order of the Magistrate Judge (Filing No. 217 in Case No. 16cv466 and Filing No. 229 in Case No. 16cv465) is affirmed in all respects. Member Cases: 8:16-cv-00466-JFB-MDN, 8:16-cv-00465-JFB-MDN Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (LAC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BOROWIAK IGA FOODLINER, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant,
8:16CV466
LEAD CASE
v.
AFFILIATED
FOODS
MIDWEST
COOPERATIVE, INC., and ASSOCIATED
WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,
Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs/Counterclaimants,
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TREVOR BOROWIAK,
Third Party Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------AFFILIATED
FOODS
MIDWEST
COOPERATIVE,
INC.,
a
Nebraska
corporation;
and
ASSOCIATED
WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC.,
8:16CV465
MEMBER CASE
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation;
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant.
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
on
Defendants/third-party
plaintiffs/Counterclaim plaintiffs Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative, Inc., and
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.’s (collectively, “AFM/AWG”) objections, Filing No.
221 in Case No. 16cv466 and Filing No. 233 in Case No. 16cv465, to the Order of the
1
Magistrate Judge,1 denying AFM/AWG’s motion for leave to supplement its complaint.2
These are consolidated actions for breach of contract and tortious interference with a
business relationship.
AFM/AFW sought to leave to add a claim for violations of the Illinois
Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS § 5/14-2(a)(2). The Magistrate Judge found that these
cases have been pending for over two years and largely pertain to contractual
relationships between the parties, whereas AFM/AWG’s proposed new claim under the
Illinois Eavesdropping Act is only tangentially related to one of the cases and would
require the court to interpret Illinois law in a case that otherwise would not require the
court to do so. The Magistrate Judge concluded that adding the new claim at this stage
of the proceedings would hinder judicial efficiency and cause delay in what has been
extremely protracted and contentious litigation.
AFM/AFW objects to the denial of leave. It argues that the Magistrate Judge
based the denial on a finding of prejudice that had not been argued by the parties and
on a need for additional discovery and depositions that is not supported by evidence.
A magistrate judge’s authority over nondispositive pretrial matters is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On review of a decision of the magistrate judge on a
nondispositive matter, the district court may set aside any part of the magistrate judge's
order that it finds is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 2007).
(“A district court may reconsider a magistrate judge's ruling on nondispositive pretrial
1
2
Filing No. 217 in Case No. 16cv466 and Filing No. 229 in Case No. 16cv465.
Filing No. 171 in Case No. 16cv466 and Filing No. 182 in Case No. 16cv465
2
matters where it has been shown that the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.”).
A decision 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); see Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir.
2007). A decision is “contrary to the 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) (quoting Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. v. Lincoln
Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 592 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1093 (N.D. Iowa 2008)). A magistrate judge is
afforded broad discretion in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes. Bialas
v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 59 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 1995).
The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s denial of leave to amend the
complaint. A party does not have an absolute right to amend its complaint and “[a]
denial of leave to amend may be justified by undue delay, bad faith on the part of the
moving party, futility of the amendment or unfair prejudice to the opposing party.”
Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 833 (8th Cir. 2008)(quoting United States ex rel. Joshi
v. St. Luke's Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552, 557 (8th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted)). The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the claim is only tangentially related to the
claims and issues in these consolidated cases and could prolong the litigation. Also,
although the Magistrate Judge did not address the issue, Borowiak IGA Foodliner, Inc.,
Third and Trevor Borowiak (collectively, “Borowiak”) presented a tenable argument that
the claim would be futile in any event because the statute at issue limits private rights of
3
action to the parties to the allegedly improperly recorded conversation.
Though
AFM/AFW disputes that theory, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that judicial
economy does not favor this Court resolving a thorny issue of Illinois law when there is
no reason why AFM/AWG cannot file a separate action under the Illinois Eavesdropping
Act in a more appropriate forum. The Court finds AFM/AFW’s objections should be
overruled and the order of the Magistrate Judge should be affirmed. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
AFM/AFW objections (Filing No. 221 in Case No. 16cv466 and Filing No.
233 in Case No. 16cv465) are overruled.
2.
The Order of the Magistrate Judge (Filing No. 217 in Case No. 16cv466
and Filing No. 229 in Case No. 16cv465) is affirmed in all respects.
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
4
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?