12 Cited authorities

United States v. Gypsum Co.
333 U.S. 364 (1948) Cited 10,483 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight
In re Volkswagen of Am.
545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,593 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"
Black v. SettlePou, P.C.
732 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2013) Cited 313 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may not adjust the lodestar due to a Johnson factor that was already taken into account during the initial calculation of the lodestar
Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.
174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 359 times
Holding that, under the first-to-file rule, "the court in which an action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed"
Castillo v. Frank
70 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 271 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the magistrate judge has referral authority to decide non-dispositive discovery motions and the district court is to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard of review
Gardner v. GC Services, LP
CASE NO. 10-CV-997 - IEG (CAB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2010) Cited 15 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding "no overlap at all, much less 'substantial overlap'" where a later-filed action represented a California putative class, while the earlier-filed action excluded all California employees from the putative class
U.S. v. Pena
582 F. Supp. 2d 851 (W.D. Tex. 2008) Cited 9 times
Rejecting Waybright, 561 F. Supp.2d 1154, and Powers, 544 F. Supp.2d 1331
Beavers v. Express Jet Holdings, Inc.
421 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Tex. 2005) Cited 8 times
In Beavers v. Express Jet Holdings, Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Tex. 2005), the court acknowledged that other courts had held that venue transfer motions were dispositive and therefore the magistrate judge addressed the motion by report and recommendation.
Jones v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0650 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 26, 2013) Cited 1 times
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0650 06-26-2013 KELSEY JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XEROX COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant. Nancy F. Atlas MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This wage and overtime case is before the Court on Defendant Xerox Commercial Solutions, LLC's ("Defendant") Motion to Transfer Venue (the "Motion") [Doc. # 12]. The Motion is ripe for consideration. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' arguments, the record, and applicable law, and denies Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue at this time
Reddy v. Superior Global Solutions, Inc.
CASE NO. 4:11cv845 (E.D. Tex. May. 9, 2013)
CASE NO. 4:11cv845 2013-05-09 KRISHNA REDDY, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., Defendants. Ron Clark **NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION** Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant ORDER DENYING MOVING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DEFENDANTS' BELATED ANSWERS AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 504,330 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 168,221 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

Samuel et al v. Signal International L.L.C. et al

12 Cited authorities

Holding that oral testimony in conflict with contemporaneous documentary evidence deserves little weight

Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"

Holding that a court may not adjust the lodestar due to a Johnson factor that was already taken into account during the initial calculation of the lodestar

Holding that, under the first-to-file rule, "the court in which an action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed"

Holding the magistrate judge has referral authority to decide non-dispositive discovery motions and the district court is to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard of review

Finding "no overlap at all, much less 'substantial overlap'" where a later-filed action represented a California putative class, while the earlier-filed action excluded all California employees from the putative class

Rejecting Waybright, 561 F. Supp.2d 1154, and Powers, 544 F. Supp.2d 1331

In Beavers v. Express Jet Holdings, Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 994 (E.D. Tex. 2005), the court acknowledged that other courts had held that venue transfer motions were dispositive and therefore the magistrate judge addressed the motion by report and recommendation.

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order