Case No. 2:16-CV-1158 TS.

US MAGNESIUM, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. ATI TITANIUM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Allegheny TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Utah.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

US Magnesium, Plaintiff, represented by Richard D. Burbidge , BURBIDGE MITCHELL & GROSS.

US Magnesium, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Dymek , BURBIDGE MITCHELL & GROSS, Carolyn J. LeDuc , BURBIDGE MITCHELL & GROSS & Jefferson W. Gross , BURBIDGE MITCHELL & GROSS.

ATI Titanium, Defendant, represented by Chris R. Hogle , HOLLAND & HART, Blaine J. Benard , HOLLAND & HART, Elizabeth A. Rudolf , HOLLAND & HART, Jennifer S. Horne , HOLLAND & HART & Richard D. Flint , HOLLAND & HART.

Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Bryon J. Benevento , DORSEY & WHITNEY, Kimberly Neville , DORSEY & WHITNEY & Kristen E. Olsen , DORSEY & WHITNEY.


TED STEWART, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's decision to enter a Scheduling Order.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge's orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.1 "The clearly erroneous standard . . . requires that the reviewing court affirm unless it `on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'"2

The Court has carefully reviewed the Scheduling Order, the transcript of the Initial Pretrial Conference, Defendants' objections and the related briefing, and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court cannot conclude that the Magistrate Judge's decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Court will overrule the objections. However, the Court will exercise its discretion to stay the deadlines contained in the Scheduling Order until after the Court has ruled on Defendants' pending Motions to Dismiss. The parties are directed to submit a stipulated scheduling order within five (5) days after the Court issues a ruling on those Motions, if they are denied in whole or in part.



1. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
2. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases