Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02488/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02488-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Pollutants &amp; Permit Violations

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GLORIA AVILA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

OLIVERA EGG RANCH, LLC, 

 Defendant. 

______________________________/

 

Case No. 2:08-CV-02488-JAM-KJN

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING 

 Defendant Olivera Egg Ranch, LLC has filed a Request for 

Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Newman’s April 5, 2010 Order 

Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in the 

amount of $143,057.00. The matter is presently before the Court 

pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Local Rules 230(j) and 303.1 

 

1

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. 

L.R. 230(g). 

1 

Case 2:08-cv-02488-JAM -KJN Document 105 Filed 05/06/10 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

On April 5, 2010, following this Court’s Order Imposing 

Sanctions (Doc. # 80), as well as full briefing by both parties, 

a hearing on the matter, and an independent analysis of the 

Plaintiffs’ bills and Defendant’s rebuttal evidence, Magistrate 

Judge Newman issued an Order awarding Plaintiffs’ $143,057.00 in 

attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. # 97). While the district 

court judge possesses the power to reconsider non-dispositive 

pretrial matters decided by the magistrate judge, the decision 

of the magistrate judge should not be overturned unless it is 

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 

see also Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds 

the April 5, 2010 Order to be supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s Request for Reconsideration is DENIED; and 

2. The amount of attorneys’ fees and costs set forth in 

Magistrate Judge Newman’s April 5, 2010 Order is 

AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 5, 2010 

2 

Case 2:08-cv-02488-JAM -KJN Document 105 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 2