Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00749/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00749-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Savina, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert Reiser & Co., Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-749-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it "Defendant's Rule 72(a) Objection to Magistrate Judge's

September 16 Order" (doc. 58), Plaintiff's Response, and Defendant's Reply.

The Magistrate Judge rejected Defendant's motion to excuse the personal appearance

of Roger Reiser at a settlement conference. Order of Sept. 16, 2010 (doc. 57). Defendant

now argues that George Reiser has full settlement authority within the meaning of the

Magistrate Judge's order and thus there is no need to require Roger Reiser's personal

appearance where, as here, he has an important trip to Germany planned. Plaintiff contends

that in light of the checkered history of the settlement process in the case, Roger Reiser's

personal presence is critical because he controls the company and is the dominant officer.

Defendant's Reply indicates that Roger went ahead and traveled to Germany, but would come

back if he had to. 

When it comes to district judge review of a magistrate judge's order in a

nondispositive matter, Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. provides the standard. The district judge

Case 2:07-cv-00749-FJM Document 74 Filed 09/21/10 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 -

must consider objections and modify or set aside any part of the order "that is clearly

erroneous or contrary to law. " In contrast to our review of a magistrate judge's order in a

dispositive matter, our review in nondispositive matters is not de novo. Compare Rule

72(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P. to Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.

Rule 16(c)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows the court to require that a party or its

representative be present to consider settlement. Under LRCiv 83.10, this District delegates

settlement conferences to its magistrate judges. And while no party is required to settle a

case, a party may be required to at least participate in good faith in a settlement conference.

28 U.S.C. §652(a).

We cannot say that the Magistrate Judge's order here is clearly erroneous or contrary

to law. And because review is not de novo, we cannot substitute our judgment for his. After

all, he has worked with the parties over the settlement process and we have not.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED OVERRULING Defendant's Objection. (Doc. 58).

DATED this 21st day of September, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-00749-FJM Document 74 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 2