Schlumbrecht v. Fidelity Homestead Association

Full title: PAUL SCHLUMBRECHT, SR. v. THE FIDELITY HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Feb 16, 2005

Civil Action No. 03-3001 Section: "A"(5) (E.D. La. Feb. 16, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-3001 Section: "A"(5).

February 16, 2005

ORDER AND REASONS

JAY C. ZAINEY, Senior District Judge

Before this Court is Defendant Fidelity Homestead Association's Motion to Request the District Judge to Review and Vacate the Magistrate's October 6, 2004 Order (Rec. Doc. 29). Plaintiff opposes the motion, which is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.

A district court reviews a magistrate judge's order pursuant to the standards set out in the Federal Magistrate's Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631-39, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Local Rule 74. These rules dictate that non-dispositive pre-trial motions are to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FRCP 72(a). A decision is clearly erroneous or contrary to law when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Armour v. Hobart Corp., 1998 WL 886995, at *1 (Dec. 18, 1998) (citing Palacios Seafood, Inc. v. Piling, Inc., 888 F.2d 1509, 1513 (5^th Cir. 1989)).

On October 6, 2004, the assigned magistrate judge granted Plaintiff Paul Schlumbrecht, Sr.'s (hereinafter "Mr. Schlumbrecht") Motion to File a First Supplemental and Amending Complaint (Rec. Doc. 27), which added his wife, Ms. Sarah Schlumbrecht, as a plaintiff/party. Mrs. Schlumbrecht's claim seeks damages for a derivative loss of consortium claim as it relates to Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Fidelity Homestead Association (hereinafter "Fidelity Homestead") appealed the magistrate judge's order granting Plaintiff's motion on a number of grounds, primarily arguing that Plaintiff's amendment is futile. See Defendant's Memorandum in Support, p. 3. The Court has carefully reviewed the magistrate judge's ruling and finds it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Request the District Judge to Review and Vacate the Magistrate's October 6, 2004 Order (Rec. Doc. 29) should be and is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall submit to their depositions no later than Monday, March 7, 2005. Any disputes regarding Ms. Schlumbrect's attendance at her husband's deposition should be brought before the magistrate judge immediately; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines and Reschedule Trial Date is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant shall contact the Court to schedule a status conference if the denial of this extension will result in prejudice