Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagesmotionobjectionoverruled
plaintiffdamagesobjectionoverruled

Related Cases

Pyo v. Stockton State College, 603 F.Supp. 1278, 37 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 493, 23 Ed. Law Rep. 900
View Case »
Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140, 95 P.3d 513, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 150 Lab.Cas. P 59,883, 21 IER Cases 1244, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7367, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9911
View Case »
Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 567 F.2d 713
View Case »
Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399
View Case »
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734, 6 Fed.R.Serv.2d 831
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hartford Acc. and Indem. Co. v. Beede, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1987 WL 9977

Facts

On April 9, 1985, the case was referred to a magistrate to determine damages against Ford City Bank for counter-plaintiff Michael Sullivan. The magistrate recommended a judgment of $279,714 plus a per diem rate, but Ford City Bank filed objections that were vague and did not reference specific errors. Despite multiple extensions granted to Ford City to file a supporting memorandum, they failed to comply with the court's orders, leading to Sullivan's motions to confirm the magistrate's recommendation.

On April 9, 1985, the case was referred to a magistrate to determine damages against Ford City Bank for counter-plaintiff Michael Sullivan.

Issue

Did Ford City Bank provide sufficient grounds to overturn the magistrate's recommended disposition regarding the damages owed to Michael Sullivan?

Did Ford City Bank provide sufficient grounds to overturn the magistrate's recommended disposition regarding the damages owed to Michael Sullivan?

Rule

Parties objecting to a magistrate's recommended disposition must direct the court to specific errors of the magistrate; vague objections are insufficient.

Parties objecting to a magistrate's recommended disposition must direct the court to specific errors of the magistrate; vague objections are insufficient.

Analysis

The court found that Ford City Bank's objections were unfocused and did not identify specific errors in the magistrate's findings. The objections merely stated that the evidence contradicted the magistrate's findings without providing any substantive legal basis or reference to the record. The court emphasized that the objections failed to meet the required standard for challenging a magistrate's recommendation.

The court found that Ford City Bank's objections were unfocused and did not identify specific errors in the magistrate's findings.

Conclusion

The court overruled Ford City Bank's objections and adopted the magistrate's recommendations, entering judgment in favor of Michael Sullivan as recommended.

The court overruled Ford City Bank's objections and adopted the magistrate's recommendations, entering judgment in favor of Michael Sullivan as recommended.

Who won?

Michael Sullivan prevailed in the case because the court found the magistrate's recommendations to be proper and without error, while Ford City Bank's objections were deemed insufficient.

Michael Sullivan prevailed in the case because the court found the magistrate's recommendations to be proper and without error, while Ford City Bank's objections were deemed insufficient.

You must be