Nature's One, Inc. v. Spring Hill Jersey Cheese, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration and denying the Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 8/2/2016. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NATURE’S ONE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRING HILL JERSEY CHEESE, INC.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:15-CV-02820
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Deavers

OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff Nature’s One, Inc. has moved to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s July 7, 2016
Order (Doc. 33) granting Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Spring Hill Jersey Cheese Inc.’s
Motion to Amend/Correct Third Party Complaint. (Doc. 35.) The motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action for breach of contract, breach of
express and implied warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability, and breach of warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose. (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed a Third Party Complaint against
Triple T Dairy Commodities, Inc. and John Doe Numbers 1-5 on December 30, 2015. (Doc. 12.)
On July 6, 2016, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
Third Party Complaint to add additional Defendants, previously unknown, that it had identified
during discovery. (Doc. 32 at 1.) On July 7, 2016, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which provides that “[t]he court should freely give
leave when justice so requires.” Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order,
which Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff opposes. (Docs. 35, 36.)

1

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as an objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). This Court
“must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 72(a); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603
(6th Cir. 2001). Review under Rule 72(a) provides “considerable deference to the determinations
of magistrates.” In re Search Warrants Issued Aug. 29, 1994, 889 F. Supp. 296, 298 (S.D. Ohio
1995) (citation omitted).
III.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff takes issue with the granting of Defendant’s motion before it had the opportunity
to respond as contemplated in Local Rule 7.2, which allows a party 21 days to file a response in
opposition to a motion. The Court acknowledges this irregularity and proceeds to examine the
merits of Plaintiff’s arguments in its Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 35.) Nature’s One cite
two objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order: (1) Spring Hill’s motion to amend was an effort
to delay resolution of Nature’s One’s complaint; and (2) Spring Hill did not articulate sufficient
reasons why it did not add the names of the Third Party Defendants by the Court’s earlier
January 29, 2016 deadline for motions to amend the pleadings. (Id. at 2.)
Defendant has not offered a reason for the Court to depart from the requirement of Rule
15(a) that leave to amend be “freely given” absent a reason “such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
amendment, [or] futility of amendment.” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Absent
prejudice, delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend. Dana Corp. v. Blue Cross &

2

Blue Shield Mut. of N. Ohio, 900 F.2d 882, 888 (6th Cir. 1990). Here, Plaintiff offers no
argument for prejudice except delay, nor does it suggest that Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff has
shown any bad faith in seeking leave to amend. Moreover, the Court previously granted
Plaintiff’s request for an extension of the deadline to amend the pleadings by 30 days and
concludes that an extension for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff is appropriate here as well.
(Doc. 13.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to bifurcate the litigation between
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants from the proceedings between
Plaintiff and Defendant, citing prejudice to Plaintiff that would result from the delay related to
the amended pleadings in the litigation with the newly named Third-Party Defendants. (Doc. 35
at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid
prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more
separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” The decision to
bifurcate is within the Court’s sound discretion. Saxion v. Titan-C-Manufacturing, Inc., 86 F.3d
553, 556 (6th Cir. 1996). The matter of bifurcation is to be determined with “a case-by-case
approach” because the question is dependent on the facts of each case. In re Bendictin Litig.,
857 F.2d 290, 307 (6th Cir. 1988).
Given the issues of law and fact common to the litigation between Plaintiff and
Defendant and the litigation between Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff and Third-Party
Defendants, it is not in the interest of judicial efficiency to bifurcate the proceedings at this time.
An efficient and just resolution of the case is best served by one discovery process on all the

3

claims, particularly since the amended pleadings have not caused significant delay in the case.
The Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED. Plaintiff is free to renew its motion before trial.
IV.

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and DENIES the Motion to
Bifurcate. (Doc. 35.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: August 2, 2016

4