Giacometto Ranch Inc. v. Denbury Onshore LLC.

D. Montana

Giacometto Ranch Inc. v. Denbury Onshore LLC.

DecidedJanuary 19, 2024

Docket1:16-cv-00145

StatusUnknown

This text of Giacometto Ranch Inc. v. Denbury Onshore LLC. (Giacometto Ranch Inc. v. Denbury Onshore LLC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giacometto Ranch Inc. v. Denbury Onshore LLC., (D. Mont. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

GIACOMETTO RANCH INC., a Montana Corporation, TOM CV 16-145-BLG-SPW GIACOMETTO, a resident of Montana, and ROBERT GIACOMETTO, a resident of South ORDER ADOPTING Dakota FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiffs, Vs. DENBURY ONSHORE LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DENBURY OPERATING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations, filed January 4, 2024. (Doc. 255). Judge DeSoto recommended the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs Giacometto Ranch Inc.’s, Tom Giacometto’s, and Robert Giacometto’s Motion to Hold Denbury in Contempt, to Sanction Denbury, and to Continue Trial of Plaintiffs (Doc. 169). The parties were required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants objected to the Findings and Recommendations, and so

waived their right to de novo review of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no

party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear

error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Government of Guam v. Guerrero, || F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting C.L.R. v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291 (1960)). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge DeSoto committed clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 255) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 169) is (1) GRANTED as to sanctions for the spoilation of evidence, and the jury shall receive a permissive adverse inference instruction; (2) GRANTED as to reasonable attorney fees associated with bringing the spoliation claim; and (3) DENIED as to all other issues.

DATED this_/” Jay of January, 2024.

United States District Judge

ry

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

GIACOMETTO RANCH INC., a Montana Corporation, TOM CV 16-145-BLG-SPW GIACOMETTO, a resident of Montana, and ROBERT GIACOMETTO, a resident of South ORDER ADOPTING Dakota FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiffs, Vs. DENBURY ONSHORE LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DENBURY OPERATING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations, filed January 4, 2024. (Doc. 255). Judge DeSoto recommended the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs Giacometto Ranch Inc.’s, Tom Giacometto’s, and Robert Giacometto’s Motion to Hold Denbury in Contempt, to Sanction Denbury, and to Continue Trial of Plaintiffs (Doc. 169). The parties were required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants objected to the Findings and Recommendations, and so

waived their right to de novo review of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which no

party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear

error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Government of Guam v. Guerrero, || F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting C.L.R. v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291 (1960)). After reviewing the Findings and Recommendations, this Court does not find that Judge DeSoto committed clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge DeSoto’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 255) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 169) is (1) GRANTED as to sanctions for the spoilation of evidence, and the jury shall receive a permissive adverse inference instruction; (2) GRANTED as to reasonable attorney fees associated with bringing the spoliation claim; and (3) DENIED as to all other issues.

DATED this_/” Jay of January, 2024.

United States District Judge

ry

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Giacometto Ranch Inc. v. Denbury Onshore LLC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giacometto-ranch-inc-v-denbury-onshore-llc-mtd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack