Newbold v. HealthEquity Inc

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

SEAN NEWBOLD, LEXIE FRIESEN, and ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF JARED LEAMAN, JARED LEAMAN’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:24-cv-00103-DAK-JCB vs. Judge Dale A. Kimball HEALTHEQUITY, INC., Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Jared Leaman’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision (“Objection”) [ECF 152]. On March 20, 2025, Defendant HealthEquity, Inc. (“HQY”) filed a Motion for Attorney Fees (“Motion for Fees”) [ECF 110] seeking the fees it incurred in responding to Plaintiffs’ attempts to evade their obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as they pertain to scheduling and engaging in discovery. After Plaintiffs opposed the Motion for Fees, [ECF 132], HQY filed a reply in support of its Motion [ECF 135]. This briefing came in the midst of a “flurry of motions” Plaintiffs had filed purportedly to “seek an expedited resolution as to Mr. Leaman’s claims.” See Order on Mot. for Fees, at 5 [ECF 136]. This Court denied those motions, many of which had preceded the attorney-fee briefing, but left the Motion for Fees live for Magistrate Judge Bennett’s consideration. See generally Mem. Decision and Order [ECF 124]. After Magistrate Judge Bennett granted the Motion for Fees, [ECF 136], Plaintiff Leaman filed his Objection, [ECF 152]. District courts are highly deferential to Magistrate Judges’ rulings, and “review a Magistrate Judge’s orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard.” Combe v. Cinemark USA, Inc, No. 1:08-CV-142 TS, 2009 WL 3584883, at *1 (D. Utah Oct. 26, 2009). “The clearly erroneous standard applies to factual findings and requires an affirmation of the Magistrate Judge’s decision unless ‘on the entire evidence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” /d. (quoting Smith v. MCT Telecommunications Corp., 137 F.R.D. 25, 27 (D. Kan. 1991). “The contrary to law standard however, permits the district court to conduct a plenary review of the magistrate[’]s purely legal determinations and may set aside an order if the wrong legal standard was applied.” /d. After review of the Magistrate Judge’s granting of the Motion for Fees, the Court 1s neither left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” nor finds that the Order granting the Motion for Fees was contrary to law. Magistrate Judge Bennett addressed and applied the appropriate legal standards and made the appropriate ruling given the circumstances of this case. This court would have made the same ruling. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objection [ECF 152] is overruled. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 9" day of July 2025 BY THE COURT:

yh Cf, Vt Judge Dale A. Kimball; United States District Judge