Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00144/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides in pertinent part: 

A party may serve and file objections to the [magistrate judge’s] order within 14

days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the

order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely

objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or

is contrary to law.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles M. Brewer, Ltd. Restated Pension

Plan, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

CBIZ, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-144-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike CBIZ’s Response to Plaintiffs’

Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 16 April 2010 Order. (Doc. # 89) Relying on General

Motors Corporation v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 1240, 1243 (E.D. Wisc. 1995),

Plaintiffs argue that the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), as compared with

that of subsection 72(b), “does not contemplate or allow responses to the objections.”1

The Court declines to follow General Motors and instead will follow the long-standing

practice of allowing a party that prevailed before a magistrate judge to respond to any

Case 2:09-cv-00144-JWS Document 98 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 3
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

 Exhibits 4 - 11 are as follows: (4) Letter from Leo Beus to James Trimble dated 3 January

2005 enclosing Tolling Agreement; (5) Letter from Daniel Morgan to Charles Brewer dated 22 May

2001; (6) Letter from Daniel Morgan to Jay Beltz, Ross Gordon & Assoc. (predecessor to CBIZ)

dated 22 May 2001; (7) Invoice from Reish to Brewer dated 7 September 2001; (8) Internet

biography of Joseph C. Faucher, a Reish attorney; (9) Fax cover sheet from Jay Beltz to Martin

Heming, a Reish attorney, dated 9 August 2001, without the attached 6 pages; (10) Fax cover sheet

from Jay Beltz to Martin Heming, a Reish attorney, dated 10 August 2001, without the attached 18

pages; and (11) a compilation of invoices from Reish to Brewer dated 8 October 2001, 8 November

2002, 9 December 2002, 8 January 2003, 7 February 2003, and 26 February 2003. (* The January

8, 2003 invoice is not part of the request to strike.)

- 2 -

objections filed by the opposing party. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 72(a),

90 F.R.D. 451, 495 (1981) states that “[i]t is also contemplated that a party who is successful

before the magistrate [judge] will be afforded an opportunity to respond to objections raised

to the magistrate[] [judge’s] ruling.” Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Strike and will consider Defendants’ Response.

The Court further declines Plaintiffs’ request in the alternative to strike Exhibits 4 -

11 attached to the Response because, they argue, none of these exhibits were before

Magistrate Judge Duncan for consideration.2

 The Court will determine and consider all

appropriate arguments and evidence in reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s decision. The Court

will allow Plaintiffs to file a Reply. 

Plaintiffs are reminded of their obligations under Federal Rule of Procedure 11(b) and

are warned that any future frivolous motions that simply result in a delay of the proceedings

may result in sanctions.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike CBIZ’s Response to Plaintiffs’

Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 16 April 2010 Order. (Doc. # 89)

/ / / 

Case 2:09-cv-00144-JWS Document 98 Filed 06/10/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs leave to file a Reply to Defendants’

Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 16 April 2010 Order.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00144-JWS Document 98 Filed 06/10/10 Page 3 of 3