GUERRIERO et al v. SANFORD L.P. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 120 Appeal Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court, and that the Order of Magistrate Judge Hammer, entered on May 1, 2017 (ECF no. 116), is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 7/31/17. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Guardian Ad Litem of A.G., a
minor of six years, et at.,
Civ. No. 12-5246 (KM)
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
SANFORD L.P., a Division of
Newell Rubbermaid, et aL,
This matter comes before the court on the appeal of defendants Newell
Rubbermaid Inc. and Sanford, L.P. (collectively “Newell”) from a non-dispositive
oral opinion (“Op.”, ECF no. 119) and order (“Order”, ECF no. 116) of
Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer. That Order granted the application of
defendant Carolina Precision Plastics (“CPP”) to file an answer to the
crossclaims of Newell out of time. Newell has filed a brief on appeal (ECF no.
120-1); CPP has filed a response (ECF no. 125)); and Newell has filed a reply
(ECF no. 126). The matter is fully briefed and ripe for decision.
The District Court will reverse a Magistrate Judge’s decision on a non
dispositive motion only if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); L. Civ. I?. 72,1(c)(1)(A). “This deferential standard is especially
appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has managed this case from the outset
and developed a thorough knowledge of the proceedings.” Lithuanian Commerce
Corp., Ltd. z. Sara Lee Hosiery, 177 F.R.D. 205, 214 (D.N.J. l97) (internal
In this case, the standard of review matters little. I find myself in
complete agreement with the well-reasoned oral Opinion of Judge Hammer. He
conscientiously reviewed the parties’ submissions and appropriately applied
the factors of Pioneer mu. Serus. Co. v. BrunswickAssocs., 507 U.S. 380 (1993)
to the facts of the case, with which he was intimately familiar.
I therefore affirm the Order for the reasons expressed in Judge Hammer’s
Opinion (ECF no. 119), which is deemed to be incorporated herein.
I add only the following. Fed. I?. Civ. P. 6, like all of the federal rules, will
be applied in a practical manner, to bypass pleading technicalities and get to
the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. There is little doubt that CPP erred
substantially here, but not in a manner that would have benefited CPP or
afforded it a litigation advantage. CPP has appeared in this action and
participated in discovery. The Magistrate Judge rightly noted that this matter
has been litigated, and discovery has proceeded, on the basis of the claims that
have been asserted. It would be inappropriate and inequitable now to award
relief that would amount to a default judgment on the crossclaims.
Therefore, IT IS this 31st day of July, 2017
ORDERED that the appeal (ECF no. 120) is DENIED and that the Order
of Magistrate Judge Hammer, entered on May 1, 2017 (ECF no. 116), is
United States District Judge
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?