Usler et al v. Vital Farms, Inc. et al

Filing 188

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, (Dkt. 180 ), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. [115 ]), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiffs Tanze and Godze's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the New York, Florida, and Michigan express warranty claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is otherwise D ENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, (Dkts. 125 , 147 ), is DENIED. Finally, the Court AFFIRMS the order granting Defendant's Motion to Exclude and Strike the Report of Dr. Greg Allenby, (Dkt. 151 ), and DENIES Plaintiffs' appeal, (Dkt. 180 ). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (pg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
NICHOLAS A. USLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
VITAL FARMS, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:21-CV-447-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is the order and report and recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Mark Lane concerning Defendant Vital Farms, Inc.’s (“Vital Farms”) (“Defendant”) Motion
for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 115), Plaintiffs Burcu Karaca, Kenny Kierman, Charles Sankowich,
Nicholas A. Usler, and Alina Yurkovsky’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Class Certification, (Dkt. 125,
147), and Defendant’s Motion to Exclude and Strike the Report of Dr. Greg Allenby, (Dkt. 151). (R.
& R., Dkt. 180). Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the report and recommendation and appealed
the grant of the Motion to Exclude and Strike the Report of Dr. Greg Allenby. (Objs., Dkt. 181).
A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and
recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Because Plaintiffs timely objected to the report and recommendation on Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, the Court reviews the
report and recommendation de novo. Having done so and for the reasons given in the report and
recommendation, the Court overrules the Plaintiffs’ objections and adopts the report and
recommendation as its own order.

1

As for the Plaintiffs’ appeal of the magistrate judge’s order granting Defendant’s Motion to
Exclude and Strike the Report of Dr. Greg Allenby, a district judge may reconsider any pretrial
matter determined by a magistrate judge where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). District courts apply a “clearly
erroneous” standard when reviewing a magistrate judge’s ruling under the referral authority of that
statute. Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The clearly erroneous or contrary to law
standard of review is “highly deferential” and requires the court to affirm the decision of the
magistrate judge unless, based on the entire evidence, the court reaches “a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Gomez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:15-CV-866-DAE,
2017 WL 5201797, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The clearly erroneous standard “does not entitle the court to reverse or
reconsider the order simply because it would or could decide the matter differently.” Id. (citing
Guzman v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc., 808 F.3d 1031, 1036 (5th Cir. 2015)). Upon its
own review, this Court finds that the magistrate judge’s order was not clearly erroneous or contrary
to law.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, (Dkt. 180), is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt.
115), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiffs Tanze and
Godze’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the New York, Florida, and Michigan
express warranty claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion is otherwise
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, (Dkts. 125,
147), is DENIED.
2

Finally, the Court AFFIRMS the order granting Defendant’s Motion to Exclude and Strike
the Report of Dr. Greg Allenby, (Dkt. 151), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ appeal, (Dkt. 180).
SIGNED on September 23, 2024.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3