United States v. Real Prop. Known as 6469 Polo Pointe

S.D. Florida

United States v. Real Prop. Known as 6469 Polo Pointe

444 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58478, 2006 WL 2337239

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida

DecidedMay 8, 2006

Docket04-81135-CIV

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 444 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (United States v. Real Prop. Known as 6469 Polo Pointe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Real Prop. Known as 6469 Polo Pointe, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58478, 2006 WL 2337239 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT’S APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S OMNIBUS ORDER OF APRIL 5, 2006 AND REQUEST FOR STAY

HURLEY, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the court upon the plaintiffs appeal of magistrate judge’s omnibus order of April 5, 2006 and request for stay. The court previously referred all discovery matters to U.S. Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins for final disposition. On April 5, 2006, Judge Hopkins entered an order granting the plaintiffs motion to compel and compelling the claimant, Designs by Zorian International, Inc., to provide tax records for the last six years to the plaintiff. The order directed the claimant to produce his tax records by *1266 April 10, 2006. The claimant now seeks reconsideration of this order, arguing that the plaintiffs original motion to compel was untimely and that the tax records are not relevant to these proceedings.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to the magistrate judge for final disposition where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” In his April 5, 2006 order, Judge Hopkins specifically dealt with the issues currently raised by the claimant and concluded that the plaintiffs motion to compel was timely and that the tax records are relevant to these proceedings. Judge Hopkins’s conclusions are adequately supported by the record in this case and the relevant case law. Therefore, the court is unable to conclude that Judge Hopkins’s order compelling the production of the claimant’s tax records is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1.The claimant’s appeal of magistrate judge’s omnibus order of April 5, 2006 and request for stay [DE # 44-1, 44-2] is DENIED.

2 The claimant is directed to provide the tax records no later than FIVE (5) DAYS from the date of entry of this order.

3. The claimant’s request for hearing on the instant motion [DE #45] is DENIED.

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

ORDER DENYING CLAIMANT’S APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S OMNIBUS ORDER OF APRIL 5, 2006 AND REQUEST FOR STAY

HURLEY, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the court upon the plaintiffs appeal of magistrate judge’s omnibus order of April 5, 2006 and request for stay. The court previously referred all discovery matters to U.S. Magistrate Judge James M. Hopkins for final disposition. On April 5, 2006, Judge Hopkins entered an order granting the plaintiffs motion to compel and compelling the claimant, Designs by Zorian International, Inc., to provide tax records for the last six years to the plaintiff. The order directed the claimant to produce his tax records by *1266 April 10, 2006. The claimant now seeks reconsideration of this order, arguing that the plaintiffs original motion to compel was untimely and that the tax records are not relevant to these proceedings.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to the magistrate judge for final disposition where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” In his April 5, 2006 order, Judge Hopkins specifically dealt with the issues currently raised by the claimant and concluded that the plaintiffs motion to compel was timely and that the tax records are relevant to these proceedings. Judge Hopkins’s conclusions are adequately supported by the record in this case and the relevant case law. Therefore, the court is unable to conclude that Judge Hopkins’s order compelling the production of the claimant’s tax records is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1.The claimant’s appeal of magistrate judge’s omnibus order of April 5, 2006 and request for stay [DE # 44-1, 44-2] is DENIED.

2 The claimant is directed to provide the tax records no later than FIVE (5) DAYS from the date of entry of this order.

3. The claimant’s request for hearing on the instant motion [DE #45] is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58478, 2006 WL 2337239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-real-prop-known-as-6469-polo-pointe-flsd-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack