The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, United States District Judge
Catherine Jeang Not Present
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S 2009 SEPTEMBER 18 ORDER REFUSING TO SANCTION DEFENSE COUNSEL'S PREVIOUS REJECTED, BOILERPLATE, WORD PROCESSED ARGUMENT [filed 9/28/09]
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.
On September 18, 2009, Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich issued an order denying plaintiff B. Benedict Waters' motion for monetary sanctions against defendants' counsel. On September 28, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's September 18, 2009 order.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), a party may file objections to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive order within 10 days, and "[t]he district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Rule 3.3.1 of the Local Rules Governing Duties of Magistrate Judges sets forth the same standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Grimes v. City and County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
The Court has reviewed and considered plaintiff's objections, and finds that the Magistrate Judge's September 18, 2009 order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The arguments of defense counsel to which plaintiff objects are not "clearly frivolous, legally unreasonable or without legal foundation, or brought for an improper purpose." Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. A-C Co., 851 F.2d 1336, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, it cannot be said that the failure to award sanctions, which is in any event a discretionary decision, is clearly erroneous contrary to law or otherwise constitutes an abuse of discretion, and plaintiff's objections are therefore overruled.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...