Wilson et al v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC

Filing 559

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Columbia Gass motions for default judgment (docs. 464, 470, 476, 483, 496, 508, 511,522, 528, 531 and 549) be DENIED - objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 02/05/2015. (sr1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Paul Gary Wilson, et al.,

:

Plaintiffs

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-01203

:

Judge Graham

:

Magistrate Judge Abel

v.
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,
Defendant/Counterclaimant
v.

:
:

Exclusive Natural Gas Storage,
Easements, et al.,
Counterclaim-Defendants

:
:
:

Report and Recommendation
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC’s
(“Columbia Gas”) motions for default judgment (docs. 464, 470, 476, 483, 496, 508, 511,
522, 528, 531 and 549).
Numerous motions to dismiss the counterclaims remain pending before the
Court. Plaintiffs maintain that Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not
permit counterclaims against unnamed members of a putative or certified class because
they are not opposing parties and therefore not subject to Rule 13 compulsory or
permissive counterclaims. The pending motions to dismiss are a better mechanism for
1

deciding this issue. Columbia Gas may renew its applications for entry of default and
motions for default judgment in the even that the Court denies plaintiffs’ motions to
dismiss the counterclaims. Until that time, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that
Columbia Gas’s motions for default judgment (docs. 464, 470, 476, 483, 496, 508, 511,
522, 528, 531 and 549) be DENIED.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within
fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the
Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof
in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),
Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District
Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not
raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge

2