UDDOH v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al
Filing
222
OPINION AND ORDER, that Plaintiff's appeal 208 OBJECTION AND APPEAL of Order of Magistrate Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J. dated 9/11/2017, is Denied and it is further Ordered that the Magistrate Judge's Order [Docket No. 197] entered 9/11/2017 is affirmed. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/19/2017. (JB, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
HUMPHREY O. UDDOH,
:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v.
:
:
:
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA et al.,
:
:
Defendants. :
:
Civil Action No. 13-2719 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the appeal of Magistrate Judge Waldor’s order,
filed September 11, 2017, by Plaintiff Humphrey O. Uddoh. Defendant Selective Insurance
Company of America (“Selective”) has opposed the appeal. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.
For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge’s order will be affirmed.
The letter order appealed from resolved two motions for reconsideration: 1) Plaintiff
sought reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order, filed June 7, 2017, which denied his
application for leave to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint; and 2) Defendant sought
reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s text order, filed May 3, 2017, which stated, in
pertinent part: “Nicholas Vytell and Gerald Nielsen will be deposed on June 9, 2017 in
accordance with the limitations discussed on the record on May 3, 2017.” In the letter order of
September 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Waldor denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and
granted Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. As to Defendant’s motion for reconsideration,
the Magistrate Judge reversed her decision of May 3, 2017 and granted the motion to quash.
Plaintiff has appealed both component decisions of the letter order filed September 11,
2017. As to the motion to quash, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge reversed herself
without explanation. This is incorrect. In the letter order filed September 11, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge explained the basis for the reversal clearly: “Plaintiff fails to make the
connection between the testimony he would elicit from the lawyers regarding potential violation
of a Court order and a breach of contract by Selective.” (Order of September 11, 2017 at 3.)
Plaintiff’s appeal brief does not address the explanation provided by the Magistrate Judge, nor
does it deal with the issue of the connection between the testimony sought and the breach of
contract claim. Plaintiff has offered this Court no basis to find that the Magistrate Judge erred on
this issue.
A Magistrate Judge’s non-dispositive order may be set aside if it is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In this District, when “the magistrate has ruled on a
non-dispositive matter such as a discovery motion, his or her ruling is entitled to great deference
and is reversible only for abuse of discretion.” Kresefsky v. Panasonic Communs. & Sys. Co.,
169 F.R.D. 54, 64 (D.N.J. 1996). A motion to quash raises an issue of discovery, which is an
area entrusted to the Magistrate Judge’s discretion. Plaintiff has not persuaded this Court that
the order at issue is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, nor that the Magistrate Judge abused
her discretion in deciding to grant both the motion for reconsideration and the underlying motion
to quash. To the contrary, Plaintiff has not addressed the basis for the decision stated by the
Magistrate Judge. As to the decision to grant reconsideration and to grant the motion to quash,
Magistrate Judge Waldor’s order, filed September 11, 2017, will be affirmed.
As to the issue of amending the Complaint, the letter order of September 11, 2017
2
explained that the request to file a motion to amend the Complaint was denied on the grounds of
futility. (Order of September 11, 2017 at 1.) Specifically, the letter order explained that Plaintiff
sought to amend the Complaint to assert a claim or claims related to Defendant’s alleged
falsification of adjusters’ reports, but that Plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to
plausibly give rise to any inference of forgery or falsification.
Plaintiff’s appeal brief offers a tangle of arguments on the issue of amending the
Complaint, but they do not address the futility determination that was the basis for the decision
appealed from. Plaintiff has presented this Court with little basis to find that the Magistrate
Judge erred in this conclusion. Plaintiff’s appeal brief alleges that the adjuster testified that he
authored just three reports on the property at issue, but that there are eight final reports in
existence. Plaintiff does not explain how these allegations give rise to a fraud claim. Accepting
these allegations as true, this Court does not understand how these facts impact Plaintiff’s case in
any material way. On this record, this Court believes that the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly give rise to any inference of
material, actionable forgery or falsification. As to the decision denying the application to file a
motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff has not persuaded this Court that the order at issue is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. As to the decision to deny the motion for reconsideration of the
order denying the application for leave to file a motion to amend the complaint, Magistrate Judge
Waldor’s order, filed September 11, 2017, will be affirmed.
Defendant argues as well that Plaintiff’s appeal should be denied as untimely. Local
Civil Rule 72.1(c)(1)(A) provides that an appeal from a Magistrate Judge’s determination of a
non-dispositive matter may be filed within 14 days of the date the party was served with the
3
order appealed from. The Court docket shows that the Magistrate Judge’s order, filed September
11, 2017, was posted to the docket the following day, September 12, 2017. The deadline for
filing an appeal, Defendant contends, was 14 days after that, or September 26, 2017. Plaintiff
filed his appeal on October 11, 2017, which makes the appeal untimely. Plaintiff did not file a
reply brief to counter this argument. This Court finds that the untimeliness of the appeal
provides an additional basis for denying it.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 19th day of December, 2017, hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s appeal (Docket Entry No. 208) of the Magistrate Judge’s
order entered September 11, 2017 is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s order (Docket Entry No. 197), entered
September 11, 2017, is AFFIRMED.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J
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?