From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Firstar Bank v. West-Anderson

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Jan 16, 2003
Civil Action No. 02-2224-CM (D. Kan. Jan. 16, 2003)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 02-2224-CM

January 16, 2003.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Pending before the court is defendant Brenda K. West-Anderson's Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order by District Judge to Join Necessary Parties (Doc. 32). In the order at issue, Magistrate O'Hara denied defendant West-Anderson's request to amend the complaint and join purportedly necessary parties. Presumably pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a), defendant West-Anderson asks the court to set aside the magistrate's order and grant defendant leave to join as necessary parties fourteen additional entities. As set forth below, defendant's motion is denied.

With respect to nondispositive matters, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) provides, in pertinent part, that "[w]ithin 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order." In addition, Rule 72(a) directs that the "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 and contrary to law."

D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a) provides that the "procedure for filing objections to an order of a magistrate in a nondispositive matter shall be as set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Such objections shall be made by filing a motion to review the order in question."

Standard for Review of Magistrate's Decision

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court's scope of review of a magistrate's decision is whether the order has been shown to be "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1461-62 (10th Cir. 1988). The "clearly erroneous standard" requires that the court affirm the decision of the magistrate unless "`on the entire evidence [the court] is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Id. at 1464 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); D. Kan. Rule 72.1.1(c) 72.1.4(a).

Discussion

Defendant asserts that the magistrate judge erred in denying her motion to join fourteen purportedly necessary parties. In essence, defendant appears to assert that the magistrate judge failed to review all of the documents submitted in support of her motion and that the magistrate "simply chooses to ignore" the facts submitted in favor of defendant. (Def.'s Mot. at 1).

The court finds no error in the magistrate's ruling. Upon review of defendant's present motion, defendant's motion to amend and join necessary parties, all related papers, and the relevant law, the court finds defendant has failed to show how "complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties" in the absence of the addition of the fourteen entities presented by defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a). Although defendant contends that the fourteen entities presented "have some type of interest in Defendant's home, which is the subject of this current action" (Def.'s Mot. at 2), she has failed to establish that compulsory joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(a) is appropriate. Accordingly, the court finds the magistrate's ruling is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Finally, the court notes that defendant may use the documentation submitted in support of her motion to amend and motion for reconsideration when presenting her defense to the current foreclosure action where she can establish its relevancy.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Brenda K. West-Anderson's Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order by District Judge to Join Necessary Parties (Doc. 32) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Firstar Bank v. West-Anderson

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Jan 16, 2003
Civil Action No. 02-2224-CM (D. Kan. Jan. 16, 2003)
Case details for

Firstar Bank v. West-Anderson

Case Details

Full title:FIRSTAR BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. BRENDA WEST-ANDERSON, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Jan 16, 2003

Citations

Civil Action No. 02-2224-CM (D. Kan. Jan. 16, 2003)

Citing Cases

L.G. Barcus Sons, Inc. v. Faherty

Therefore, according to Laughlin v. Kmart Corp. 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995), the court would not…

AG SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. v. METSKER

Because "jurisdiction is determined at the time of the notice of removal, the movant must meet its burden in…