Reyes et al v. Bona 1372, Inc. et al

Filing 191

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 179 Report and Recommendation. Pltf's 158 Sixth Motion to Dismiss Defts' Counterclaims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses is granted in part/denied in part. The defts' affirmative defense of laches is stricken, but the motion is denied in all other aspects. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 4/17/18. (tkd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JESSICA REYES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BONA 1372, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-16

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for pretrial management. Doc. No. 29. Pending before the court is the Plaintiffs’ “Sixth
Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses.” Doc. No. 158. The court has
received and considered the report (Doc. No. 179) of the magistrate judge, who recommends that
the Defendants’ affirmative defense of laches should be stricken, but the motion should be denied
in all other aspects. Id. at 20. The Plaintiffs filed timely objections (Doc. No. 185) to the report
and recommendation.
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) (Supp. IV 2011); FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they
object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district

1 of 3

court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on
other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Plaintiffs have not objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendations concerning the
Defendants’ affirmative defenses, but they have objected to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations concerning the Defendants’ counterclaims. The objections include nineteen
paragraphs of substantive argument, though each paragraph does not appear to be an independent
objection. Instead, the Plaintiffs’ objections rehash essentially the same legal arguments rejected
by the magistrate judge.
Contrary to the Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Defendants’ counterclaims are compulsory, and
this categorization distinguishes the instant case from the Fifth Circuit precedent cited by the
Plaintiffs. Doc. No. 185, ¶¶ 4–6. As the magistrate judge correctly concluded (Doc. No. 179,
at 6–11), the counterclaims satisfy all four inquiries under Tank Insulation to be considered
compulsory counterclaims. See Tank Insulation Int’l, Inc. v. Insultherm, Inc., 104 F.3d 83, 85–
86 (5th Cir. 1997). The Plaintiffs’ objection that the magistrate judge misapplied the factors of
Tank Insulation (Doc. No. 185, ¶¶ 10–14) is without merit.
The Plaintiffs also argue that the damages alleged by the Defendants for their
counterclaims improperly inject extraneous issues into the proceedings, and this should merit
categorical dismissal of counterclaims. Doc. No. 185, ¶¶ 2—19. As the magistrate judge
noted, “a motion to dismiss counterclaims is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge the proper
categories of damages.”

Doc. No. 179, at 13 (emphasis in original).

The Defendants’

counterclaims do not fail categorically simply because some of the damages they allege may
attempt to inject extraneous issues into the proceedings. Even if some of the damages alleged are

2 of 3

extraneous in the instant case, the Plaintiffs have not cited any legal authority requiring the
dismissal of the counterclaims on that basis. As the magistrate judge advised, “[t]he Plaintiffs’
arguments concerning damages may be better served by a subsequent dispositive motion with full
and focused briefing on the damages issue.” Id.
It is ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc. No. 185) are OVERRULED, the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 179) is ADOPTED, and the Plaintiffs’
“Sixth Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses” (Doc. No. 158) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Defendants’ affirmative defense of laches is
stricken, .but the motion is denied in all other aspects.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 17th day of April, 2018.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 of 3