US Magnesium v. ATI Titanium et al, No. 2:2016cv01158 - Document 53 (D. Utah 2017)

Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
US Magnesium v. ATI Titanium et al Doc. 53 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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