Clark Material Handling Company v. Toyota Material Handling U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Dismiss; affirming 19 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 12/8/2012. (blf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12cv510
CLARK MATERIAL HANDLING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
TOYOTA MATERIAL HANDLING,
U.S.A., INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and
Recommendation issued in this matter. In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the
magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in
accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). Objections have been filed
within the time allowed.
The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that “a district court shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). However, “when objections to strictly legal issues are
raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed
with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Similarly, de novo review is not
required by the statute “when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Id. Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review at all
of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);

-1-

Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final
determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the court has conducted a careful
review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Review of defendant’s Objections (#21) reveal that they are little more than a
restatement of arguments made before the magistrate judge in the initial briefing. Further,
much of the additional case law cited, which involves personal and property injury, is readily
distinguishable from the alleged commercial wrongdoing in this case. Finally, the magistrate
judge’s resolution of the conflict of laws as to the unfair trade practice claims is inherently
reasonable and wholly consistent with this court’s view that conflict of laws issues are better
resolved after fact discovery:
Defendant asks the Court to determine that North Carolina law applies
at this early stage in the proceedings. The undersigned finds that the better
practice is to resolve conflict of laws issues at the motion for summary
judgment stage and on a fully developed record after completion of discovery.
M&R, at 5 (citations omitted). Indeed, North Carolina’s choice of law rule requires
application of the “most significant relationship” test, which in turn requires this the court
to “first identify the occurrences giving rise to this suit.” American Rockwool, Inc. v.
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 640 F. Supp. 1411, 1431 (E.D.N.C. 1986).
After such careful review, the court determines that recommendation of the magistrate
judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the factual background
and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings.

Based on such

determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant
relief in accordance therewith.

-2-

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant’s Objections (#21) are
OVERRULED, the Memorandum and Recommendation (#19) is AFFIRMED, defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike (#12) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART, the Sixth Cause of action is DISMISSED without prejudice as to reassertion in the
ad damnum clause of the Complaint, and the motion is otherwise DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as to reassertion after the close of discovery and upon a Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Signed: December 8, 2012

-3-