Devore & Sons, Inc. v. Aurora Pacific Cattle Co., Civ. A. No. 81-1264.
Decision Date | 08 February 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-1264. |
Citation | 560 F. Supp. 236 |
Parties | DEVORE & SONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AURORA PACIFIC CATTLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Rex G. Beasley, Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, Wichita, Kan., for plaintiff.
Christopher Randall, Turner & Boisseau, Wichita, Kan., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVIEW MAGISTRATE'S ORDER
This is a contract action in which the plaintiff seeks to recover $28,560 for twenty-nine Holstein Springing Heifers delivered to the defendants. Defendants accepted and subsequently sold the cattle in question, but stopped payment on their check to cover the value of the cattle as soon as the cattle were shipped outside Kansas. Defendants contest their liability to the plaintiff and have filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff breached the terms of the contract. Jurisdiction over both the original complaint and the counterclaim is predicated on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, inasmuch as the plaintiff is a Kansas resident and all of the defendants are residents of Oregon.
On July 1, 1982, plaintiff moved for sanctions against the defendants for their allegedly willful failure to comply with discovery orders. An order was filed on July 26, 1982, by United States Magistrate John B. Wooley, in which he struck the defendants' counterclaim from the case file and assessed attorney fees in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant for time spent in the preparation and execution of the motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, all in accordance with Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case is currently before the Court on the motion of the defendants to review Magistrate Wooley's order.
1. Factual Background
The dilatory and uncooperative attitude held by the defendants toward the plaintiff's interrogatories is well summarized in Magistrate Wooley's order:
Order of Magistrate Wooley, July 26, 1982, at 1-2. Interrogatory number 13 requested information concerning the present location of the twenty-nine cattle that the plaintiff delivered to the defendants, and, if any of the cattle had been sold, the name and address of the purchaser and the purchase price. This requested information went to the central issue in the case.
II. Motion to Review
The defendants seek review of Magistrate Wooley's order on two bases: first, that a magistrate is without statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to order the involuntary dismissal of a counterclaim, and second, that Magistrate Wooley abused his discretion in ordering the counterclaim to be stricken from the case file. This Court finds both of these contentions to be without merit.
The defendants' argument that a magistrate is without statutory authority to order the involuntary dismissal of a counterclaim is predicated on the limitation contained in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) that:
"A judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action."
Such predication is misplaced. Initially, it should be noted that the motion before Judge Wooley was one for sanctions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cooperative Finance Ass'n, Inc. v. Garst
...on the power of a magistrate judge to dismiss a claim or counterclaim as a discovery sanction, compare Devore & Sons v. Aurora Pacific Cattle Co., 560 F.Supp. 236 (D.Kan.1983) (§ 636(b)(1)(A) prevents a magistrate judge from disposing of cases on the merits, but does not preclude Fed.R.Civ.......
-
Miller v. Cudahy Co.
...Magistrate must stand unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Devore & Sons, Inc. v. Aurora Pacific Cattle Co., 560 F.Supp. 236, 239 (D.Kan.1983). Although this Court would have approached these motions from a different conceptual basis had they been ......
-
Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Industries
...further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions."3 The Browns rely on Devore & Sons, Inc. v. Aurora Pacific Cattle Co., 560 F.Supp. 236, 238-39 (D.Kan.1983), for the proposition that magistrate authority to resort to the sanction of dismissal is vital to their a......
-
Giangola v. Walt Disney World Co.
...reconsideration pursuant to Local Rules 40(A)(2) and (D)(5). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Devore & Sons, Inc. v. Aurora Pacific Cattle Co., 560 F.Supp. 236, 238-239 (D.Kan.1983). The final determination, and the issuance of any enforceable court Order, must derive from an Article III ......
-
The power to award sanctions: does it belong in the hands of magistrate judges?
...152 (D.N.J. 1990); a motion to strike a counterclaim as a discovery sanction, see Devore & Sons, Inc. v. Aurora Pac. Cattle Co., 560 F. Supp. 236, 238-39 (D. Kan. 1983); a motion to strike pleadings, see Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1462 (10th Cir. 1988); and a mot......