Fernandez v. Southwestern Railroad of New Mexico et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Robert C. Brack Overruling 83 Objections filed by The Western Group, L.C., Southwestern Shortline Railroad Company; Adopting 81 Report and Recommendations; Denying 55 Motion to Dismiss; and Dismissing as Moot 69 Motion to Strike (jjs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ANTONIO FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 2:15-cv-1165-RB-KRS

THE WESTERN GROUP, L.C. and
SOUTHWESTERN SHORTLINE
RAILROAD COMPANY d/b/a
SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative for Sanctions (“Motion to Dismiss”) (Doc. 55), filed April 7, 2017, and Motion to
Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion to Strike”) (Doc. 69),
filed June 6, 2017. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea, who entered Proposed Findings of Fact and [a]
Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) (Doc. 81) on January 11, 2018. As detailed in the PFRD,
Judge Sweazea recommended denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissal of
Defendants’ Motion to Strike. On January 25, 2018, Defendants timely filed objections to the
PFRD (Doc. 83) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Having considered, de novo, those portions of the PFRD to which Defendants object, see
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court finds that Defendants’ objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the Court determines that it will overrule Defendants’ objections, adopt the PFRD
in its entirety, deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and dismiss Defendants’ Motion to Strike.

The relevant facts and law are set forth in the PFRD, and it would serve no purpose to
repeat the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis. The Court finds it worth
mention, however, that the majority of Defendants’ objections are reassertions of the arguments
Defendants advanced in their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55). One notable exception is
Defendants’ third objection, which reads, in pertinent part, “[t]he Defendants object to the PFRD
relying on the Plaintiff’s untimely Sur-Reply in the PFRD, but dismissing the Motion to Strike as
moot. Doc. 81. Pg. 3.” (Doc. 83 at 8.) This objection, however, is misguided, as the only
document that is discussed on page three of the PFRD is Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 61), and the
PFRD contains no mention of Plaintiff’s sur-reply. 1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Objections to Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition (Doc. 83) are hereby OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings of Fact
and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 81) is hereby ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 55) is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 69) is hereby
DISMISSED as moot.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. BRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Page three of the PFRD does note that it is understandable that Plaintiff construes Defendants’ motion as a request
for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. (Doc. 81 at 3.) Plaintiff, though, expresses this interpretation in his
Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 58 at 2.)

2