1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTON EWING, Case No.: 19-CV-2328 JLS (KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER OVERRULING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 HURRICANE TAX, LLC, a California CRAWFORD’S ORDER limited liability company; DEEPAK 15 SADASHIV PARWATIKAR, an (ECF No. 33) 16 individual, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Anton Ewing’s Objections to Magistrate Judge 20 Crawford’s June 3, 2020 Order Striking Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice. 21 (“Objections,” ECF No. 33). Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the 22 Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections. 23 District courts “must consider timely objections” to a magistrate’s ruling and “set 24 aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 72(a); see also Grimes v. City and Cty. of S.F.,

(9th Cir. 1991). A ruling 26 is clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court, on the entire record, reaches “a definite 27 and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum 28 Co.,

(1948); Carl Zeiss Vision Int’l GmbH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc., No. 1 07-CV-894 DMS (DHB),

at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2010). 2 In contrast, the “contrary to law” standard permits independent review of purely legal 3 determinations by a magistrate judge. See, e.g., Med. Imaging Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. 4 Lichtenstein,

(S.D. Cal. 1996). 5 Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) on May 21, 2020. ECF No. 30. 6 The RJN was docketed on May 27, 2020. See

Plaintiff requested “the Court take notice 7 of records of proceedings before the State Bar of California involving Mr. Parwatikar or 8 his counsel; draft discovery responses Mr. Ewing received from Defendants’ counsel in 9 this matter; and a Memorandum Opinion and Order from a matter pending in the District 10 of New Mexico in which Mr. Parwatikar and his counsel were parties.” ECF No. 31. Judge 11 Crawford found the RJN to be irrelevant to any pending matter and served only to 12 embarrass and harass Defendants and their counsel.

13 Plaintiff raises two objections to Judge Crawford’s Order. First, Plaintiff contends 14 that Judge Crawford mistakenly stated that Plaintiff filed the RJN on May 27, 2020, rather 15 than on May 21, 2020. Objections at 2. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff did, in fact, 16 file his request on May 21, 2020. This is not a sufficient reason, however, to overrule 17 Judge Crawford’s ultimate conclusions. Judge Crawford’s reasons for striking Plaintiff’s 18 RJN were not based solely on the date they were filed. Instead, Judge Crawford found the 19 Plaintiff’s requests were irrelevant and filed for an improper purpose. ECF No. 31 at 2–3. 20 The Court finds these conclusions are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 21 Second, Plaintiff contends that he intended the RJN to be ruled on by the District 22 Court Judge, not the Magistrate Judge. Objections at 2. Magistrate judges have the 23 authority to rule on non-dispositive pretrial motions.

(b); see also Flam v. 24 Flam,

, 1045–46 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court found it appropriate to refer 25 Plaintiff’s RJN, a non-dispositive motion, to Judge Crawford. And Plaintiff has now 26 exercised his right to object to that ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff’s wish that 27 the District Judge rule on the RJN in the first instance is not a sufficient reason to overturn 28 Judge Crawford’s well-reasoned Order. 1 Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate 2 || Judge’s Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: June 17, 2020 . tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28