The Cato Corporation v. L.A. Printex Industries, Inc.

Filing 112

ORDER overruling 98 Motion for Review of Magistrate's Order; and 62 Order on Motion to Compel is affirmed. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 7/11/12. (com)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-cv-462

THE CATO CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No.3:10-cv-00462

____________________________________
L.A. PRINTEX INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CATO CORP., a
Delaware corporation;
VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC., a
California Corporation; LI & FUNG
LTD., a Hong Kong Limited Company;
LF USA, INC., A New York Corporation;
and DOES 3 through 10,
Defendants.

ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:10-cv-00543

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a non-dispositive Memorandum
and Order (#62) issued by Honorable David S. Cayer, United States Magistrate Judge, in this
matter. L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. has filed a Motion for Review of Magistrate’s Order (#98).
The district court has authority to assign non-dispositive pretrial matters pending before
the court to a magistrate judge to “hear and determine.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). When
reviewing an objection to a magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive matter, the district
court must set aside or modify any portion of that order which is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). To show that a magistrate judge's order is contrary to law, the
-1-

objecting party must show that the magistrate judge failed to apply or misapplied statutes, case
law, or procedural rules. See Catskill Dev. LLC v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86
(S.D.N.Y.2002).
The court has carefully reviewed the Memorandum and Order, and L.A. Printex’s
Motion, as well as this court’s previous Order (#108) on The Cato Corporation’s Motion for
Sanctions and determines that the Order of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and
supported by current law. Based on such determination, the court will overrule the objection and
fully affirm the Order. However, the court reserves the right to admit any relevant evidence at
trial, should the parties fail to settle this matter.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Magistrate’s
Order (#98) is OVERRULED, and the Order (#62) is AFFIRMED.

Signed: July 11, 2012

-2-