Greene v. Alan Waxler Group Charter Services, LLC
Filing
131
ORDER that 123 Objections re 121 Magistrate Judge's Order is OVERRULED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/15/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
ROBERT GREENE,
7
8
2:09-CV-748 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
ALAN WAXLER GROUP CHARTER
SERVICES, LLC dba AWG CHARTER
SERVICES, et al.,
11
12
Defendants.
13
14
15
ORDER
16
Presently before the court is defendants Alan Waxler Group Charter Services, LLC et al.’s
17
objection to the magistrate’s order (doc. # 121) denying defendants’ motion to reopen discovery
18
(doc. # 123).1 Plaintiffs Robert Greene et al. responded (doc. # 127), defendants replied (doc. # 129).
19
I.
Procedural background
20
This is a wage and hour suit brought on behalf of limousine drivers. Following the close of
21
discovery, defendants moved to have discovery reopened. (Doc. # 108). At the motion hearing,
22
Magistrate Judge Koppe denied defendants’ motion. (Doc. # 121). Defendants object to the
23
magistrate’s order and request permission to conduct discovery and submit dispositive motions prior
24
to filing a joint pretrial order.
25
...
26
...
27
1
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
The court notes that defendants filed an erratum to their motion. (See doc. # 124).
1
II.
Legal standard
2
3
Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review
4
under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R.
5
CIV. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a
6
magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the
7
magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “This subsection would also
8
enable the court to delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as . . .
9
assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the court.” Gomez
10
v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869, 109 S. Ct. 2237, 104 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1989).
11
“A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing
12
body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
13
committed.” United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). “An
14
order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of
15
procedure.” Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. v. Kemet Blue Powder Corp., 3:11-CV-00793-RCJ,
16
2012 WL 3884939, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 6, 2012).
17
A magistrate’s pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de novo
18
review, and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding
19
court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
III.
Discussion
21
Defendants object to the magistrate’s order for one reason: that their failure to conduct
22
discovery amounts to excusable neglect and thus establishes good cause to reopen discovery.
23
Defendants concede their failure to follow the rules; however, defendants contend that this
24
deficiency was on the part of prior counsel.
25
Defendants’ objection is a factual one. Defendants essentially disagree with the magistrate’s
26
decision to not reopen discovery and make arguments that are substantially similar to those contained
27
in their initial motion or that could have been, but were not, raised in their initial motion.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
However, the court is not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
2
committed.” Ressam, 593 F.3d at 1118. Defendants admittedly failed to follow the rules and it is
3
within the magistrate’s sound discretion whether to excuse these shortcomings. This court will “not
4
simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241 (9th Cir.
5
1991). Magistrate Judge Koppe’s decision not to reopen discovery is an exercise of judgment that
6
does not rise to the level of “clearly erroneous” to warrant sustaining the instant objection.
7
IV.
Conclusion
8
Accordingly,
9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants Alan Waxler
10
Group Charter Services, LLC et al.’s objection (doc. # 123) be, and the same hereby is,
11
OVERRULED.
12
DATED May 15, 2013.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?