Escamilla v. M2 TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al

Filing 124

ORDER AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S JANUARY 26, 2015 AND JULY 10, 2015 ORER AND MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 93 Motion for Summary Judgment. Further it is ordered that, before filingany other suits in this District against M2 Technology, Inc., David Escamilla must first seek leave of court to do so. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 9/29/2015. (pad, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
DAVID ESCAMILLA
Plaintiff,
vs.
M2 TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 4:12CV634

ORDER AFFIRMING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JANUARY 26, 2015 AND
JULY 10, 2015 ORDERS AND MEMORANDUM ADOPTING
AUGUST 31, 2015 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 5, 2012 This case was filed by pro se Plaintiff David Escamilla. See Dkts. 1
& 2. In accordance with Order RS-72, General Order No. 05-07 and the Local Rules and standing
orders of this court, all pretrial matters were referred to the Magistrate Judge to be handled in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).
On December 11, 2013, the Magistrate Judge stayed this case pending the final disposition
of and exhaustion of all appellate remedies in a related case, M2 Technology, Inc. v. M2 Software,
Inc., Cause Number 4:12cv458. See Dkt. 83. As grounds for the stay, the Magistrate Judge noted
the potential of res judicata and collateral estoppel as well as the possibility of inconsistent rulings
in the two cases. Id.
On January 26, 2015, after a mandate from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was filed in
the related case, the Magistrate Judge lifted the stay in this matter and directed Defendant to file its
motion for summary judgment on the issue of res judicata. See Dkt. 92. The order stated that until

1

the court ruled on the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel, no discovery should be
conducted and no further materials, except those relating to the summary judgment motion on res
judicata, should be filed. Id. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on February 5,
2015. See Dkt. 93.
On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 26, 2015
Order Lifting Stay. See Dkt. 94. Plaintiff argued that all appellate remedies had not yet been
exhausted in the related case and that the Magistrate’s Order lifting the stay was clearly erroneous
and/or contrary to the law for several reasons and that the stay should remain in effect. After
Defendant responded to the objections (see Dkt. 95) and Plaintiff replied (see Dkt. 96), on February
20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge re-imposed the stay in the case, rendering moot Plaintiff’s objections
to the January 26, 2015 Order Lifting Stay. See Dkt. 97.
The stay remained in effect until June 17, 2015 when the Magistrate Judge, noting that the
U.S. Supreme Court had denied Plaintiff’s request for a rehearing in the related case, entered an
order lifting the stay and setting a July 6, 2015 deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. 107.
On July 6, 2015, counsel filed a notice of appearance for Plaintiff and Plaintiff, through
counsel, filed his response to the motion for summary judgment, as well as a Motion to Re-Urge
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s Motion to Test the Sufficiency of Answers and
Objections to Requests for Admissions and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication of
the Issue of Likelihood-of-Confusion. See Dkts. 108-112.

2

On July 10, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered an order striking Plaintiff’s Motion to ReUrge Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Plaintiff’s Motion to Test the Sufficiency of Answers and
Objections to Requests for Admissions and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication of
the Issue of Likelihood-of-Confusion. See Dkt. 116. The Magistrate Judge stated that because the
court had not yet ruled on the merits of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on res judicata,
discovery remained stayed and Plaintiff’s motions were premature. Id.
On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s July 10, 2015 Order
and re-urged his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 26, 2015 Order. See Dkt. 118. On
August 5, 2015, Defendant filed a response to those objections. See Dkt. 119.
On August 31, 2015, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 93)
should be GRANTED, that Plaintiff David Escamilla should take nothing by any of his claims here
as they are barred in their entirety by res judicata, and that Defendant should be awarded its costs
herein. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that it should be ordered that, before filing any
other suits in this District against M2 Technology, Inc., David Escamilla must first seek leave of
court to do so. See Dkt. 120.
On September 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, and, on September 17, 2015, Defendant responded to those objections. See
Dkts. 121 and 122.
The court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s January 26, 2015 and July 10, 2015 Orders,
Plaintiff’s objections thereto, and Defendant’s responses. Having reviewed the same, the court

3

finds that the Magistrate Judge’s orders are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(a). As to Plaintiff’s requested discovery, “[a] trial court has broad discretion and inherent
power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined.”
Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th Cir. 1987). As to the Magistrate Judge’s restriction of the
materials filed prior to the resolution of the issue of res judicata,
[t]he district court possesses the inherent power to control its docket. This power
includes the authority to decide the order in which to hear and decide pending
issues. The district court used its discretionary authority to handle this case in the
most efficient way; the court ruled upon the potentially dispositive issue first.
Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1998). Here, the Magistrate
Judge’s January 26, 2015 and July 10, 2015 Orders were within the scope of his pretrial referral
and his authority under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and were made in accordance with the court’s
inherent authority to manage its docket in a manner it deems most efficient.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Magistrate Judge’s January 26,
2015 and July 10, 2015 Orders are AFFIRMED.
Further, the court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff regarding
the Magistrate Judge’s August 31, 2015 report and recommendation, as well Defendant’s response,
and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the
objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. The court hereby
adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this
court.
The judgment in the related case, Cause Number 4:12cv458, was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction and was final and on the merits, the parties in this suit and Cause Number
4

4:12cv458 were identical or in privity for purposes of res judicata, and Plaintiff’s claims in this suit
are based on the same nucleus of operative facts or series of connected transactions out of which the
claims in Cause Number 4:12cv458 arose. All of Plaintiff’s claims in this case are barred by res
judicata.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 93) is GRANTED, Plaintiff
David Escamilla shall take nothing by any of his claims here as they are barred in their entirety by
res judicata, and Defendant shall be awarded its costs herein. Further it is ordered that, before filing
any other suits in this District against M2 Technology, Inc., David Escamilla must first seek leave
of court to do so. This matter shall be closed on the court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

.

SIGNED this the 29th day of September, 2015.

_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5