Hofmann et al v Hall et al

Filing 494

ORDER Affirming 463 Magistrate Judge Pead's Ruling and Order Issued on July 30, 2019: 1) Plaintiffs' Objections are OVERRULED; and 2) Magistrate Judge Pead's July 30, 2019 Ruling and Order is AFFIRMED in its entirety. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 9/6/19. (dla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ELLIS-HALL CONSULTANTS, LLC; a
Utah limited liability company; and
ANTHONY HALL, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GEORGE B. HOFFMAN IV, an individual;
PARSONS KINGHORN HARRIS NKA
COHNE KINGHORN, P.C., a Utah
professional corporation; MATTHEW M.
BOLEY, an individual; KIMBERLY L.
HANSEN, an individual; GARY E.
JUBBER, an individual; and DAVID R.
HAGUE, an individual, FABIAN &
CLENDENIN NKA FABIAN VANCOTT,
P.C., a Utah professional corporation,
Defendants.
In re:
RENEWABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Debtor,

ELIZABETH R. LOVERIDGE, Chapter 7
Trustee,
v.

Plaintiff,

TONY HALL; ELLIS-HALL
CONSULTANTS, LLC; SUMMIT WIND
POWER, LLC, SSP, A Trust (Scott
Rasmussen – Trustee), and DOES I-X,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE PEAD’S RULING AND ORDER
ISSUED ON JULY 30, 2019
Consolidated Case No. 2:12-CV-771
(Consolidated from Case No. 2:15-CV-913)
Judge Dee Benson

SUMMIT WIND POWER, LLC
v.

Counterclaimants,

GEORGE HOFMANN, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Counterclaim Defendant.
SUMMIT WIND POWER, LLC, and
KIMBERLY CERUTI, an individual,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
PARSONS KINGHORN HARRIS, a
professional corporation; GEORGE B.
HOFMANN; MATTHEW BOLEY;
KIMBERLY L. HANSEN; VICTOR P.
COPELAND; LISA R. PETERSEN; and
MELYSSA DAVIDSON, individuals
Third-Party Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Pead’s July
30, 2019 Ruling & Order (Dkt. No. 463), pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Dkt. No. 475.)1
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Pead’s July 30, 2019 Ruling and Order, Plaintiffs’
specific objections thereto, the relevant filings of the parties and the arguments contained therein,

1

Magistrate Judge Pead’s July 30, 2019 Ruling & Order set forth Judge Pead’s decision on seven (7) separate
motions. (Dkt. No. 463.) Although Plaintiffs’ “Objections to the Order & Ruling” (Dkt. No. 475), appear on its
face to object to the entirety of the Order & Ruling, it specifically objects to Judge Pead’s ruling on only five of the
seven motions: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 408); Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No.
419); Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 409); Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay or Extend Expert Deadlines (Dkt.
No. 449); and Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. No. 456). (See Dkt. No. 475, Plaintiffs’ Objections.)

2

as well as having listened to the parties’ oral arguments at the July 29, 2019 hearing, the
Plaintiffs’ objections are OVERRULED. The Court finds no basis for concluding that the
Magistrate Judge’s Ruling & Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Objections are OVERRULED; and
2. Magistrate Judge Pead’s July 30, 2019 Ruling and Order is AFFIRMED in its
entirety.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

Dee Benson
United States District Judge

3