Fonseca v. City of Red Bluff
Filing
30
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 6/6/2011 17 Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's 15 Order. (Marciel, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JUDITH FONSECA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:10-cv-02685-MCE-CMK
v.
ORDER
CITY OF RED BLUFF,
15
Defendant.
16
----oo0oo----
17
18
Lynn Hubbard, the original counsel of record for Plaintiff
19
Judith Fonseca in this litigation, filed, on April 26, 2011, a
20
Motion for Review of the Magistrate Judge’s April 15 Order
21
declining Hubbard’s request to continue the hearing on
22
Defendant’s Motion to Compel scheduled for May 5, 2011.
23
Motion was scheduled to be heard before this Court on June 9,
24
2011.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
That
1
By Order dated May 15, 2011, the Court granted Hubbard’s
2
Motion to Withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff in this
3
litigation, leaving Plaintiff representing herself in pro se.
4
Given Hubbard’s withdrawal from this litigation, as well as the
5
Court’s declination to hear the instant Motion for Review prior
6
to the May 5, 2011 hearing on the Motion to Compel, the Motion
7
for Review is for all intents and purposes moot at this juncture.
8
9
Attorney Hubbard’s Motion for Review fails substantively in
any event.
In reviewing a magistrate judge’s determination, the
10
assigned district judge shall apply a clear error standard of
11
review pursuant to Local Rule 72-303(f), as specifically
12
authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and 28 U.S.C.
13
§ 636(b)(1)(A).1
14
the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless it has a “definite and
15
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
16
Pipe & Products of Calif., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension
17
Trust for So. Calif., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
18
believes the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge were at
19
least plausible, after considering the record in its entirety,
20
the Court will not reverse even if convinced that it would have
21
weighed the evidence differently.
22
Universal Elec. Co., Inc., 104 F.3d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir. 1997).
23
///
24
///
Under that standard, this Court must accept
Concrete
If the Court
Phoenix Eng. & Supply Inc. v.
25
1
26
27
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) directs the district
court judge to “modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate
judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district judge may
reconsider any pretrial order “where it is shown that the
magistrate’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
2
1
Here, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out in the April 15,
2
2011 that is the subject of the Motion for Review, attorney
3
Hubbard’s obligation to timely respond to discovery prior to
4
moving to withdraw is an entirely separate issue than the
5
propriety of withdrawal itself.
6
denying a continuance of the Motion to Compel on that basis was
7
not in clear error.
8
9
10
11
The Magistrate Judge’s decision
The Motion for Review filed on behalf of Plaintiff (ECF
No. 17) is accordingly DENIED.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2011
12
13
_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,
the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 230(g).
3
]]>
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?
