Taylor v. Costco Wholesale Corporation ( 2019 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 LULA TAYLOR, Case No. 3:18-cv-00586-MMD-CBC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 COSTCO WHOLESALE 9 CORPORATION, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff Lula Taylor initiated this action pro se to assert a claim for negligence 13 arising from an incident where she slipped and fell from a liquid substance on the floor of 14 an aisle at Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s premises. (ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) 15 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (“Objections”) (ECF No. 76) to United States 16 Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry’s ruling (ECF No. 74) lifting the discovery stay and 17 requiring Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 36) to supplement her 18 discovery responses. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s 19 Objections. 20 Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court 21 review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a “district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or 23 set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”); see also LR 24 IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge 25 in a civil or criminal case under LB IB 1-3, when it has been shown the magistrate judge’s 26 order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly 27 erroneous” if the court has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 28 committed.” See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “An order 1 || is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules 2 || of procedure.” Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) 3 || (quoting DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F. Supp. 2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). When reviewing 4 || the order, however, the magistrate judge “is afforded broad discretion, which will be 5 || overruled only if abused.” Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. 6 || Cal. 2007). The district judge “may not simply substitute its judgment” for that of the 7 || magistrate judge. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 8 || 1991) (citing United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)). 9 Plaintiff's Objections repeat allegations that Judge Carry has acted contrary to 10 || judicial canons—allegations that the Court found baseless in a prior order. (See ECF No. 11 || 76 at 4-6; ECF No. 63 at 3-4.) Plaintiff again has failed to demonstrate that Judge Carry’s 12 || rulings are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court will overrule 13 || Plaintiff's Objections. 14 Plaintiff also seems to seek reconsideration of certain rulings and recusal of Judge 15 || Carry (see ECF No. 76 at 2, 5), but Plaintiff has not complied with LR IC 2-2(b), which 16 || requires separate filings for each type of relief requested. But even if the Court considers 17 || the substance of Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff has failed to offer a valid reason for 18 || reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff's additional requests in the Objections are denied. 19 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 76) are overruled. 20 DATED THIS 15" day of August 2019. 21 nA ~ 22 _ 2 (SQ IRANDA M. DU 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28