Ducks Unlimited, Inc. v. Boondux, LLC et al

Filing 78

ORDER ADOPTING 75 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 59 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 06/20/16. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BOONDUX, LLC AND CALEB SUTTON,

Defendants.

No. 14-2885

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

Ducks

Unlimited’s

January

25,

2016

Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement or, in the Alternative,
to

Schedule

a

Judicial

Settlement

Conference (the “Motion”).

Conference

and

(Motion, ECF No. 59.)

Status

The Motion

was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation
Unlimited’s
agreement.

(the

“Report”)

request

to

on

April

enforce

the

(Report, ECF No. 75.)

the Motion to Enforce be denied.

5,

2016,

as

purported

to

Ducks

settlement

The Report recommends that
(Id.)

No objection has been

filed to the Report and the time to do so has passed.
Also

before

the

Court

is

the

request

that,

if

the

settlement agreement is not enforced, the Court order a judicial
settlement

conference

scheduling

order.

and/or

(Motion,

status
ECF

conference

No.

59

at

to
5-6.)

modify

the

Boondux

responded on February 10, 2016.

(Resp., ECF No. 66.)

Unlimited replied on February 23, 2016.

Ducks

(Reply, ECF No. 71.)

The Report did not make a recommendation on those requests.

For

the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the Motion is
DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
I. Background
The Report sets forth the factual and procedural background
of this case in detail.

(Report, ECF No. 75.)

Unless otherwise

stated, the Court adopts the Report’s defined terms.
II. Jurisdiction
Ducks Unlimited brings suit under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1112 and 1125, and the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501.

The

Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
III. Standard of Review
A.

Report and Recommendation

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district
court duties to magistrate judges.
237

F.3d

States,

598,
490

602

U.S.

(6th
858,

Cir.

See United States v. Curtis,

2001)

869-70

(citing

(1989));

Gomez

see

v.

also

Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

United

Baker

v.

“A district

judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
P.

72(b);

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(C).
2

After

Fed. R. Civ.
reviewing

the

evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
proposed findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The district court is not required to

review — under a de novo or any other standard — those aspects
of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

The district court

should adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to
which no specific objection is filed.
B.
Judicial
Conference
A

district

court

Settlement

may

order

Id. at 151.
Conference

parties

to

and/or

Status

participate

in

conferences facilitating settlement under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16.
Local

Rules,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(5);(c)(2)(I).
the

parties

may

request

a

judicial

Under the
settlement

conference “only after they have engaged in and certify to the
Court that they have participated in good faith in at least one
unsuccessful mediation under the Court’s Plan for Alternative
Dispute Resolution or private mediation.”

L.R. 16.3(b).

The

parties may modify the scheduling order for good cause shown and
with the court’s consent.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

3

IV. Analysis
A. Report and Recommendation
The

Magistrate

Judge

finds

that

the

Motion

to

Enforce

should be denied because “there was no meeting of the minds
between the parties as to all material terms” of the purported
settlement agreement.
enforceable
declined

(Report, ECF No. 75 at 16.)

agreement.

to

make

a

(Id.

at

17.)

The

recommendation

on

There is no

Magistrate

Ducks

Judge

Unlimited’s

alternative request that the Court order the parties to attend a
judicial settlement conference or an in-person status conference
because those matters fall within the discretion of the Court.
(Id. at 20.)
filed

within

failure

to

The Report states that any objections must be
14

file

days

after

objections

service
or

of

the

exceptions

Report,

within

14

and
days

that
may

constitute a waiver of objections, exceptions, and any further
appeal.

(Id. at 21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2); L.R. 72.1(g)(2)).)
Because no party has objected, Arn counsels the Court to
adopt

the

Report

in

its

entirety.

Arn,

474

U.S.

at

151.

Adopting the Report is consistent with the policies underlying §
636, specifically judicial economy and protecting against the
“functions of the district court [being] effectively duplicated
as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical

4

tasks.”

Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,

509 (6th Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the
Motion to Enforce is DENIED.
B.
Judicial
Conference
If

the

Settlement

settlement

Conference

agreement

is

and/or

determined

Status

to

be

unenforceable, Ducks Unlimited requests that the Court order the
parties

to

participate

in

a

judicial

(Motion, ECF No. 59 at 5.)
necessary

because

of

settlement

conference.

It argues that a conference is

Boondux’s

“abrupt

change

in

position

regarding settlement” and to “ensure Defendants are not abusing
the settlement process.”

(Id.)

If the Court declines to hold a

settlement conference or the conference is unsuccessful, Ducks
Unlimited requests a status conference with counsel and parties
present to establish new pretrial and trial deadlines.
5-6.)

Boondux

does

not

believe

that

a

judicial

(Id. at

settlement

conference would be productive because of the time the parties
have

already

spent

in

mediation

(Resp., ECF No. 66 at 10.)

and

settlement

negotiations.

Boondux does not oppose a status

conference and defers to the Court’s judgment about who should
be present.

(Id.)

A judicial settlement conference is not appropriate at this
time.

Ducks Unlimited’s argument in support of a conference is

5

based on its belief that Boondux has not acted in good faith
because it decided not to settle.
that argument.

The record does not support

The Report finds that Boondux was not obligated

to settle because no enforceable agreement had been reached.
Ducks

Unlimited’s

arguments

for

enforcing

settlement

are

undermined by the fact that its December 1, 2015 proposed draft
agreement altered several material terms in the November 3, 2015
offer and the fact that the communications between counsel in
November 2015 and during the November 18, 2015 status conference
with the Court “strongly suggest[] that the parties were still
in

settlement

agreement.”

negotiations

and

had

not

yet

reached

(Report, ECF No. 75 at 16-17,19.)

a

final

Ducks Unlimited

has not shown that a judicial settlement conference would be
productive

given

that

the

parties

have

settlement after months of negotiations.
that

it

no

Unlimited’s

longer
request

wants
for

a

to

settle.

judicial

failed

to

reach

a

Boondux has stated
(Id.

at

settlement

9.)

Ducks

conference

is

DENIED.
Both parties agree that a status conference is necessary to
modify the scheduling order because settlement negotiations have
failed.

For

good

cause

shown,

the

request

for

conference to modify the scheduling order is GRANTED.

a

status
An in-

person conference is not necessary given that past conferences

6

in this case have been conducted by telephone.

The Court will

contact the parties to schedule a conference.
V. Conclusion
The Report is ADOPTED and the Motion to Enforce and for a
judicial

settlement

conference

is

DENIED.

The

Motion

for

status conference is GRANTED.

So ordered this 20th day of June, 2016.

/s/__Samuel H. Mays, Jr. ___
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

a