US Magnesium v. ATI Titanium et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER overruling Objections to Magistrate Judge Decision (Docket Nos. 43 and 45 ) and staying deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order until after the Court has ruled on Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss. The parties are directed to submit a stipulated scheduling order within 5 days after the Court issues a ruling on those Motions, if they are denied in whole or in part. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/9/2017. (eat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

US MAGNESIUM, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE DECISION AND STAYING
DEADLINES

Plaintiff,
v.
ATI TITANIUM LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, ALLEGHENY
TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, a
Delaware corporation,

Case No. 2:16-CV-1158 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
decision to enter a Scheduling Order.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge’s orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly
erroneous or contrary to law standard. 1 “The clearly erroneous standard . . . requires that the
reviewing court affirm unless it ‘on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” 2
The Court has carefully reviewed the Scheduling Order, the transcript of the Initial
Pretrial Conference, Defendants’ objections and the related briefing, and the relevant case law.

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

2

Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
1

Having done so, the Court cannot conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Court will overrule the objections. However, the
Court will exercise its discretion to stay the deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order until
after the Court has ruled on Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss. The parties are directed to
submit a stipulated scheduling order within five (5) days after the Court issues a ruling on those
Motions, if they are denied in whole or in part.
SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

2