Jones et al v. JGC Dallas LLC et al
ORDER ACCEPTING 93 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 9/17/2012) (ndt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ERICA JONES, et al.,
JGC DALLAS LLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-2743-O
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in
this case (ECF No. 93). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion to stay this
action and to compel arbitration should be granted with respect to plaintiff Rede’s claim and denied
with respect to the claims of the remaining plaintiffs.
Defendants filed objections on the basis that the Magistrate Judge did not consider
Defendants’ Appendix in support of their Reply brief (ECF No. 95). However, Defendants did not
seek leave to file new evidence. A party is not automatically entitled to submit new evidence in
support of a motion in a reply brief. See Spring Indus., Inc. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 137 F.R.D.
238, 239 (N.D. Tex. 1991) (Fitzwater, J.) (“[W]here a movant has injected new evidentiary materials
in a reply without affording the nonmovant an opportunity for further response, the court still retains
the discretion to decline to consider them.”).
Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are
OVERRULED and Defendants may seek leave from the Magistrate Judge to file an additional
motion or motions to compel.
Plaintiffs submit one objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Court finds
that Plaintiffs failed to present this objection to the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, this objection is
OVERRULED. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 1994)(a party is not automatically
entitled to present new theories to the district court on an appeal from a Magistrate Judge
The Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 93) as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
SO ORDERED on this 17th day of September, 2012.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?