Encarnacion v. Isabella Geriatric Center, Inc. et al, No. 1:2011cv03757 - Document 121 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 106 MOTION to Set Aside the Order entered by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV on September 11, 2014. filed by Eileen Casey, Mariam Paul, Edwin Santiago, Isabella Geriatric Center, Inc.. On Sep tember 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Francis denied defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's jury demand. On September 24, 2014, defendants filed a motion to set aside that order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). After reviewing the order in question, both parties' submissions, and applicable legal authority, the Court concludes that the decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Defendants' motion to set aside Judge Francis's September 11, 2014 order is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 106. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/9/2014) (kgo)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Encarnacion v. Isabella Geriatric Center, Inc. et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------- X : LENNY ENCARNACION, : : Plaintiff, : : -against: : ISABELLA GERIATRIC CENTER, INC., : ET AL., : : Defendants. : ----------------------------------------------------------------- X Doc. 121 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: 10/9/2014 1:11-cv-3757-GHW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: On September 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Francis denied defendants motion to strike plaintiff s jury demand. On September 24, 2014, defendants filed a motion to set aside that order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). This Court may set aside a magistrate judge s order in a non-dispositive matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous where on the entire evidence, the [district court] is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 235 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Under this highly deferential standard of review, magistrate judges are afforded broad discretion in resolving non-dispositive disputes and reversal is appropriate only if their discretion is abused. Flaherty v. Filardi, 388 F. Supp. 2d 274, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal alterations omitted). After reviewing the order in question, both parties submissions, and applicable legal authority, the Court concludes that the decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Dockets.Justia.com Defendants motion to set aside Judge Francis s September 11, 2014 order is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at docket number 106. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 9, 2014 New York, New York _____________________________________ GREGORY H. WOODS United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
