Panzella v. County of Nassau et al

Filing 71

ORDER denying #64 Motion to Certify Class. SO ORDERED that the Motion for Class Certification is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renewal following this Court's decision on the parties' forthcoming cross-motions for summary judgment. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 12/22/2014. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)(

CHRISTINE PANZELLA, Individually and
On Behalf of a Class of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,

ORDER
13-CV-5640 (SJF)(SIL)

-againstCOUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
MICHAEL J. SPOSATO, Individually and in his
Official Capacity, ROBERT MASTROPIERI,
Individually and in his Official Capacity,
UNKNOWN SHERIFF #1, with Shield# 116,
and UNKNOWN SHERIFFS #2 through 4,
Defendants.

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U S DISTRICT COURT E ~J Y
0

*

c~c

22 2014

LONG ISLAND Q,+ICI.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, J:
On October 11, 2013, plaintiff Christine Panzella ("plaintiff') commenced this civil
rights action against County of Nassau ("Nassau County"), Nassau County Sheriffs Department
("Nassau County Sheriff'), Michael J. Sposato, Robert Mastropieri, Unknown Sheriff#!, with
Shield# 116, and Unknown Sheriffs #2 through 4 (collectively, "defendants"), challenging the
defendants' retention of plaintiffs longarms following the expiration of a court order pursuant to
which such longarms were confiscated by defendants.
On December 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule Civil Procedure 23 [Docket Entry No. 64 (the "Motion for Class Certification")],
accompanied by a cover letter directed to Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke [Docket Entry No.
65]. As a dispositive motion, the Motion for Class Certification was improperly directed to
Magistrate Judge Locke, rather than to the undersigned. See Kiobel v. Mil/son, 592 F.3d 78, 88

(2d Cir. 2010) ("plaintiffs' motion for class certification was referred to the magistrate judge for
a report and recommendation; the disposition of that motion was unquestionably beyond the
authority of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A)"); Harper v. Gov't Emps. Ins.
Co., No. 09-civ-2254, 2011 WL 4963770, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2011) ("A motion to

authorize a collective action, unlike a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is a non-dispositive motion upon which a Magistrate Judge has
authority to rule."); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A) ("a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion ... to dismiss or to
permit maintenance of a class action").
For the reasons set forth at the September 10, 2014 conference, the Motion for Class
Certification is hereby DENIED without prejudice to renewal following this Court's decision on
the parties' forthcoming cross-motions for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein
/
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

Dated: December 22,2014
Central Islip, New York