United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Linda Lee Soderstrom, Maria Johnson, Craig Goodwin, Jurline Bryant, Norma Ziegler, and Julio Stalin de Tourniel, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Claire Jean Lee, individually, and HOME Line, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Plaintiffs,
MSP Crossroads Apartments LLC, a Minnesota corporation, and Soderberg Apartment Specialists SAS, a Minnesota corporation, Defendants.
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq., Charles N. Nauen, Esq., and Kate
M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq., Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,
Minneapolis, MN; and Timothy L. Thompson, Esq., John D. Cann,
Esq., and Lael Robertson, Esq., Housing Justice Center, Saint
Paul, MN, on behalf of Class Plaintiffs.
Jean Lee, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
on Plaintiff Claire Jean Lee's (“Lee”)
Objections [Docket Nos. 135, 137] to Magistrate Judge
Katherine M. Menendez's Second Amended Pretrial
Scheduling Order [Docket No. 130] and Lee's Objection
[Docket No. 138] to Judge Menendez's May 8, 2017 Order
[Docket No. 132]. For the reasons set forth below, Lee's
Objections are overruled.
Standard of Review
standard of review applicable to an appeal of a magistrate
judge's order on a nondispositive issue is extremely
deferential. Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70
F.Supp.2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999). The district court must
affirm an order by a magistrate judge unless it is
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). “A finding is ‘clearly
erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Chakales v. Comm'r of Internal
Revenue, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir.1996). “A
decision is ‘contrary to the law' when it
‘fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case
law or rules of procedure.'” Knutson v. Blue
Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 254 F.R.D. 553, 556
(D. Minn. 2008) (quoting Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v.
Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 592 F.Supp.2d 1087,
1093 (N.D. Iowa 2008)).
Objections to Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling
argues the deadlines in the Second Amended Pretrial
Scheduling Order are unfair to her for numerous reasons. She
requests that each date in the scheduling order be lengthened
“by at least 3 months and preferably 6 months.”
Obj. [Docket No. 137] at 2.
district court possesses the inherent power “to manage
its docket and courtroom with a view toward the efficient and
expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v.
Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016); see also
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The
Second Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order is a fair and
reasonable exercise of this power and is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. The Objections to the Second
Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order are overruled.
Objection to May 8 Order
also objects to the May 8 Order in which Judge Menendez
denied Lee's requests to: (1) reconsider the January 11,
2017 Order [Docket No. 82] permitting counsel to withdraw
from representing Lee on her non-class claims; and (2) void or
vacate the First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 110] and
related Stipulation [Docket No. 106] between Class Plaintiffs
for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839
F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton
Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., ...