Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00497/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00497-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant

 /

No. C-06-0497 MMC (JL)

ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF

DENIAL OF OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER OF

APRIL 12, 2007

On April 27, 2007, defendant Ford Motor Company filed an objection to Magistrate

Judge James Larson’s Order of April 12, 2007 granting in part and denying in part

defendant’s motion to compel. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this District, an

objection to a nondispositive pretrial decision is deemed denied “[i]f no order denying the

motion or setting a briefing schedule is made within 15 days of filing the objection.” See

Civil L.R. 72-2. In addition, the Clerk is to “notify [the] parties when an objection has been

deemed denied.” See id. As no order denying the motion or setting a briefing schedule

was made within 15 days of filing the objection, defendant’s objection was deemed denied

as of May 14, 2007.

It has recently come to the Court’s attention that the Clerk has not notified the

parties that defendant’s objection was deemed denied. Accordingly, the parties are hereby

provided notice that the objection was denied, for the reason that defendant failed to show

Case 3:06-cv-00497-MMC Document 109 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the subject order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

(providing district court may reconsider magistrate judge’s order where it has been shown

to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00497-MMC Document 109 Filed 03/06/08 Page 2 of 2