Rubin v. Smith, Civ. No. 92-273-SD.
Decision Date | 30 March 1995 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 92-273-SD. |
Parties | Carol A. RUBIN, et al. v. Philip SMITH, Sr., et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
Carol A. Rubin, pro se.
Wayne C. Beyer, Manchester, NH, for Phillip Smith, Sr., Fred Rheault, James E. Ross, and Town of Salem, NH.
Richard Y. Uchida, Concord, NH, Michael R. Chamberlain, Manchester, NH, for Rebecca B. Rubin.
Robert M. Larsen, Concord, NH, Jonathan Katz, New Haven, CT, for Harvey Rubin and Quentin Rubin.
Presently before the court is plaintiff Carol A. Rubin's motion to vacate the magistrate judge's order appointing a guardian ad litem on behalf of plaintiff Rebecca Rubin. Also before the court is the guardian's motion for protective order, to which no objection has been filed.
Carol Rubin moves for an order vacating the magistrate judge's order of September 6, 1994, appointing a guardian ad litem on behalf of plaintiff Rebecca Rubin.1
Carol Rubin contends that the magistrate judge exceeded his authority by appointing a guardian ad litem, which "additionally violated the Plaintiff's due process rights because the Magistrate concluded erroneously and without affording the Plaintiff notice or a proper fact finding hearing and without issuance of a reasoned report and recommendation determining that the interests of the Plaintiff and her daughter were in legal conflict." Plaintiff Carol A. Rubin's Motion to Vacate ¶ 8.
The post of United States magistrate judge2 was legislatively created in 1968 as an adjunct to the "first echelon of the Federal judiciary," H.R.REP. No. 1629, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4252, 4254, and was intended "to help relieve the burgeoning caseloads of the United States District Courts and the corresponding burdens on federal trial judges," 12 CHARLES A. WRIGHT, ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3076.1, at 34 (Supp.1994).
Unlike Article III judges, magistrate judges can assume only as much jurisdiction as the relevant enabling statute will allow.3See Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 146 F.R.D. 52, 55 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (citing Wingo v. Wedding, 418 U.S. 461, 94 S.Ct. 2842, 41 L.Ed.2d 879 (1974)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),4 the magistrate judge is empowered to "hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court," subject to eight specifically delineated exceptions.5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (1993). Moreover, in accordance with section 636(b)(3), "a magistrate judge may be assigned such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).6
Section 636 further directs that "each district court shall establish rules pursuant to which the magistrates shall discharge their duties." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(4). In accordance with said congressional mandate, the local rules of this court indicate that the magistrate judge shall hear and determine all nondispositive matters not specifically enumerated as an exception in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and that the magistrate judge's decision "shall be final and binding7 ...." See Local Rules for the Magistrate's Duties at 99-100.
The power of the district court to reconsider a matter so decided by the magistrate judge is limited to those circumstances "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added); see also Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. ( ); 7 (pt. 2) JAMES W. MOORE, ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 72.023, at 72-16 (1994) (). "A finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
The authority to appoint a guardian ad litem is set out in Rule 17, Fed.R.Civ.P., which provides, "The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant or incompetent person." Rule 17(c), Fed. R.Civ.P. As the plaintiff correctly notes, this circuit has previously held that "the decision as to whether or not to appoint such a special representative rests with the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of its authority." Developmental Disabilities Advoc. v. Melton, 689 F.2d 281, 285 (1st Cir.1982) (citations omitted).
However, plaintiff's suggested literal interpretation of the phrase "the district court" in the quoted language belies the legislative history of the Federal Magistrates Act. As the 1976 amendments make plain, the congressional intent was to include "magistrate judge" wherever reference is made in title 28 to "the court" or "the judge".
The initial sentence of the revised section uses the phrase "notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary —." This language is intended to overcome any problem which may be caused by the fact that scattered throughout the code are statutes which refer to "the judge" or "the court". It is not feasible for the Congress to change each of those terms to read "the judge or a magistrate". It is, therefore, intended that the permissible assignment of additional duties to a magistrate judge shall be governed by the revised section 636(b), "notwithstanding any provision of law" referring to "judge" or "court".
H.R.REP. No. 1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 9, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6162, 6169; see also In re 4330 N. 35th St., supra note 2, 142 F.R.D. at 165-66 ( ).
Accordingly, the court hereby finds and rules that the term "the court" as it is used in Rule 17(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., includes actions taken by a magistrate judge as well as those taken by a district judge.
Both the propriety of the magistrate judge's order and this court's standard of review are dependent upon whether appointment of a guardian ad litem constitutes a dispositive or a non-dispositive action. Although the terms "dispositive" and "non-dispositive" are absent from the language of 28 U.S.C. § 636, they do appear in Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., as well as the local rules of this court. "Although Rule 72 makes no express reference to § 636, the Advisory Notes make clear that when Congress included the term `nondispositive' in Rule 72(a), it was referring specifically to those matters not expressly exempted in § 636(b)(1)(A)." Robinson v. Eng, 148 F.R.D. 635, 639 (D.Neb.1993) (citation omitted).8
The touchstone, therefore, is whether the magistrate judge's determination is dispositive; that is, whether it disposes of a party's claim or defense because "it is only those rulings which finally resolve a party's `claim or defense' which are considered `dispositive' within the meaning of § 636(b) and Fed. R.Civ.P. 72." Robinson, supra, 148 F.R.D. at 640 (emphasis added) (citing Rule 72(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.); see also Adkins v. Mid-American Growers, Inc., 143 F.R.D. 171, 176 (N.D.Ill.1992) (); McDonough v. Blue Cross of N.E. Pennsylvania, 131 F.R.D. 467, 472 (W.D.Pa.1990) ( ).
As noted in part 1.b.(1), supra, the courts possess an "inherent power to appoint a guardian ad litem when it appears that the minor's general representative has interests which may conflict with those of the person she is supposed to represent." Hoffert v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 161, 164 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom., Cochrane & Bresnahan v. Smith, 456 U.S. 961, 102 S.Ct. 2037, 72 L.Ed.2d 485 (1982) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see also Horacek v. Exon, 357 F.Supp. 71, 74 (D.Neb.1973) ( ). In his September 6, 1994, order, the magistrate judge found and ruled as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co., Ltd.
...to those circumstances "where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Rubin v. Smith, 882 F.Supp. 212, 215 (D.N.H.1995) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)). "`A finding is "clearly erroneous" when, although there is evidence to support it, the ......
-
Rubin v. Smith
...nondispositive act as that term is defined in Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., and by implication in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Rubin v. Smith, 882 F.Supp. 212, 217 (D.N.H.1995). Under such circumstances, the magistrate judge's appointment order was "self-operating," United States v. Ecker, 923 F.2......
-
Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Rodco Autobody
...to the undersigned. Subsection 636(b)(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides for such a referral. See Rubin v. Smith, 882 F.Supp. 212, 215 n. 6 (D.N.H.1995). 2. "Tri I" refers to the transcript of the March 7, 1995 3. Section 14 provides, in pertinent part, that: § 14. Supplement......
-
Bankart v. Ho
...reorganization of the debtor.” See Villafane–Colon v. B Open Enters., Inc., 932 F.Supp.2d 274, 280–82 (D.P.R.2013) ; Rubin v. Smith, 882 F.Supp. 212, 219 (D.N.H.1995) (“A federal court, sitting in equity, possesses all of the common law equity tools of a Chancery Court (subject, of course, ......