Source: http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130729_0000323.DDE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 16:59:13
Document Index: 195904607

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636']

Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., Esq., FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorney for Plaintiff.
The matters that are excepted from§ 636(b)(l)(A) are controlled by§ 636(b)(l)(B). The most significant difference between the two sections involves the standard of review.
A § 636(b)(1)(A) decision is subject to review as set forth in that section, which further provides that the district judge "may reconsider any pretrial matter... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Thus, findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Review of the factual determinations is limited to the record that was before the magistrate judge. Determinations of applicable legal standards are reviewed for error. There are also decisions that involve the exercise of discretion, and discretionary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. "This deferential standard of review is especially appropriate where the Magistrate Judge has managed this case from the outset and developed a thorough knowledge of the proceedings.'" Cooper Hospital/University Med. Ctr. v. Sullivan, 183 F.R.D. 119, 127 (D.N.J. 1998) (quoting another District of New Jersey case).
Thus, whether a particular decision of the Magistrate Judge will be upheld may depend, in some cases, on how it is characterized. In this case, as the parties acknowledge, there is a split of authority as to how a motion to transfer is characterized.[2] One might think this was a fairly easy issue to resolve; after all, the statute expressly states which motions are not referrable to a Magistrate Judge under§ 636(b)(l)(A). A motion to transfer is not one of the listed non-referrable motions. The statute does not have any language suggesting that motions like the listed motions are also included.
Subsequently to Frazier, the Court of Appeals made clear that a plain reading of§ 636(b)(1)(A) is not enough.
In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 1998). In essence, the issue boils down to whether resolving a motion to transfer is a dispositive motion. Both in common usage among lawyers, and in practical effect, the granting of a motion to transfer is not dispositive - the case would proceed, in federal court, much the same as it would had it stayed in the first jurisdiction. The resolution of a motion to transfer is not the "functional equivalent of an order of dismissal."
Thus, I conclude that a motion to transfer is not a dispositive motion for purposes of§ 636(b)(l), and I proceed to review the Magistrate Judge's decision under the ...