Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Russell Road Food and Beverage, LLC v. Galam

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 7, 2014

RUSSELL ROAD FOOD AND BEVERAGE, LLC, Plaintiff(s),
v.
MIKE GALAM, et al., Defendant(s)

ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is plaintiff Russell Road Food & Beverage, LLC's motion to reconsider. (Doc. # 140). Defendants filed a response in opposition. (Doc. # 142). Plaintiff has filed two supplements to its motion (docs. # # 146, 169) and defendants have filed a supplement to their opposition (doc. # 161).

I. Background

In the instant motion (doc. # 140), plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Koppe erred in denying its motion to stay or, in the alternative, to modify the scheduling order. In the underlying motion, plaintiff argued that the resolution of two outside proceedings may impact the instant case: (1) a separate action in California, Galam v. Assil ("California action"), that may bear upon defendant Michael Galam's ownership interests; and (2) an appeal before the Ninth Circuit of this court's decision (doc. # 127) to vacate the preliminary injunction in this case....

The magistrate judge denied plaintiff's motion, finding: (1) plaintiff did not provide any indication that the California action is likely to conclude within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented in this action; and (2) plaintiff's argument that this case should be stayed pending the outcome on appeal unpersuasive because the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned against delaying proceedings at the district court level in order to ascertain the views of the Ninth Circuit following a preliminary injunction appeal. (Doc. # 139).

II. Legal standard

Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court review under a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Nev. R. 3-1(a) ("A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."). "This subsection would also enable the court to delegate some of the more administrative functions to a magistrate, such as... assistance in the preparation of plans to achieve prompt disposition of cases in the court." Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869 (1989).

"A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). "An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure." Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc. v. Kemet Blue Powder Corp., 2012 WL 3884939, at *3 (D. Nev. 2012).

A magistrate's pretrial order issued under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is not subject to de novo review, and the reviewing court "may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court." Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).

III. Analysis

In the instant motion, plaintiff reiterates the same arguments that Magistrate Judge Koppe rejected. Plaintiff contends that a stay in this case could maximize efficiency if the other proceedings develop as plaintiff anticipates. Plaintiff specifically argues that the California action may render defendants without standing to assert counterclaims in this case and that the appellate decision could guide this court as to the merits of this action.

In the opposition, defendants assert that plaintiff's standing argument is implausible. (Doc. # 142). Defendants argue that the former majority members of Canico are all named defendants in this case and that all parties' interests are protected through counterclaims brought by Canico against the plaintiff. Moreover, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to establish the requisite showing of "hardship or inequity" to warrant a stay pending the appellate decision.

The court will address each of plaintiff's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.