Plaza Bank v. Green et al

Filing 69

ORDER Denying 58 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order Magistrate Judges Order Denying Defendants Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline and Scheduling Order Dates. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

PLAZA BANK, a California Corporation,
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

ALAN GREEN FAMILY TRUST, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

Case No. 2:11-cv-00130-MMD-RJJ
ORDER
(Defendants’ Motion for District Judge to
Reconsider Magistrate Judge’s Order
Denying Defendants’ Motion to Extend
Discovery Deadline and Scheduling Order
Dates – dkt. no. 58)

14
15

I.

SUMMARY

16

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for the District Judge to Reconsider

17

Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline

18

and Scheduling Order Dates (“Motion to Reconsider”). (Dkt. no. 58.) For reasons stated

19

below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

20

II.

BACKGROUND

21

On February 24, 2012, Magistrate Judge Johnston denied Defendants’ Motion to

22

Extend Discovery Time. (Dkt. nos. 57, 45.) Defendants timely filed an objection to the

23

decision and ask this Court to reconsider the Magistrate’s Order. (Dkt. no. 58.)

24

III.

DISCUSSION

25

A.

Legal Standard

26

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district

27

court review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. §

28

636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L.R. IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may

1

reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case

2

pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is

3

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). “This subsection would also enable the court to

4

delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as . . .

5

assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the

6

court.” Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869 (1989). “A finding is clearly erroneous

7

when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence

8

is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United

9

States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). A

10

magistrate’s pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de

11

novo review, and the reviewing court “may not simply substitute its judgment for that of

12

the deciding court.” Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th

13

Cir. 1991).

14

B.

Analysis

15

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Johnston’s Order, Defendants’ Objections, and

16

Plaintiff’s Response, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Order (dkt. no.

17

57) was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

18

DENIED.

19

IV.

Defendants’ Motion is therefore

CONCLUSION

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for District Judge to

21

Reconsider Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Extend Discovery

22

Deadline and Scheduling Order Dates (dkt. no. 58) is DENIED.

23

DATED THIS 21th day of August 2012.

24
25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2