Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00845/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00845-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227 FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales

---

1

19-cv-845-CAB-LL

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTON EWING,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALIERA HEALTHCARE,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-cv-845-CAB-LL

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO 

MAGISTRATE ORDER

[Doc. No. 30]

On July 31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s 

Ex Parte Motion for Recusal. [Doc. No. 27.] On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff objected to 

Judge Lopez’s Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). [Doc. No. 30.] 

For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Lopez’s July 31, 2019 Order 

is OVERRULED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 72(a), a party may object to a non-dispositive pretrial order of a 

magistrate judge within fourteen days after service of the order. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). 

District court review of magistrate judge orders on non-dispositive motions is limited. A 

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 33 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-cv-845-CAB-LL

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

district judge may reconsider a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion only 

“where it has been shown that the magistrate [judge]’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary 

to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City and 

County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th Cir. 1991). “Under this standard of 

review, a magistrate [judge]’s order is ‘clearly erroneous’ if, after considering all of the 

evidence, the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been committed, and the order is ‘contrary to law’ when it fails to apply or misapplies 

relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.” Yent v. Baca, 2002 WL 32810316, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. 2002).

The threshold of the “clearly erroneous” test is high and significantly deferential. 

“The reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the deciding court.” 

Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241. “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. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 

U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Mathews v. Chevron Corp., 362 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2004). In 

comparison, a magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law if the judge applies an incorrect 

legal standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable standard. See Hunt v. Nat’ 

Broad. Co., 872 F.2d 289, 292 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that such failures constitute abuse 

of discretion).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends “there is no law, case, FRCP, or Local Rule that allows a 

Magistrate Judge to authorize a person to practice law in California in a pending case at 

the federal courthouse devoid of payment of the $206 admission fee and making the 

requisite declarations on the pro hac application.” [Doc. No. 30 at 2.] As explained in the

Order, Judge Lopez exercised her discretion to allow Dwight Francis to participate in the 

ENE conference. Mr. Francis is a partner at the same law firm as Defendant’s attorney of 

record in this case. Furthermore, Judge Lopez explained that in order to facilitate 

settlement discussions she meets with parties together as a group and individually 

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 33 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-cv-845-CAB-LL

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

throughout the conference. Plaintiff has failed to show any adequate basis for Judge 

Lopez’s recusal. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that the July 31, 2019 Order is 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law and therefore Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Lopez’s July 31, 2019 

Order is OVERRULED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00845-CAB-LL Document 33 Filed 08/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3