Rugova v. Silverstone Property Group, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-02648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rugova v. Silverstone, Judge Abrams overruled objections and declined to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s discovery order.
Haxhi Rugova and Defendants Silverstone Property Group, LLC, and Madison Realty Capital, L.P.; the ruling left Judge Lehrburger’s January 28, 2025 order unchanged.
What happened
In Rugova v. Silverstone Property Group, LLC, Haxhi Rugova asked the court to sanction Silverstone Property Group, LLC, and Madison Realty Capital, L.P. for allegedly obstructing discovery and violating discovery orders. He sought to strike their answer and enter default judgment, or alternatively prevent them from using certain witnesses.
Magistrate Judge Lehrburger denied Rugova’s motion. Rugova objected, arguing that the decision should have been issued as a recommendation requiring fresh review by the district judge, and that it was clearly wrong or contrary to law.
Judge Ronnie Abrams reviewed the decision under the more limited standard for nondispositive matters and found no error. She overruled Rugova’s objections and declined to modify or set aside Judge Lehrburger’s order.
The detailed version
- Rugova v. Silverstone Property Group, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-02648
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
The court had referred the action to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger for general pretrial matters. On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff Haxhi Rugova moved to sanction Defendants Silverstone Property Group, LLC, and Madison Realty Capital, L.P., alleging that they obstructed discovery and violated Judge Lehrburger’s discovery orders. Rugova asked the court to strike Defendants’ answer and enter default judgment against them. Alternatively, he asked the court to prevent Defendants from using certain witnesses.
Judge Lehrburger denied the motion by order dated January 28, 2025. Rugova then filed a letter objecting to that order. He argued that his motion should have been handled as a dispositive matter through a report and recommendation, which would have required the district judge to review it independently. He also argued that the order was clearly erroneous and contrary to law.
Legal Standard and Analysis
The court explained that magistrate judges must issue reports and recommendations for certain dispositive motions. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a district judge reviews timely objections to those matters independently. For nondispositive matters, Rule 72(a) allows the district judge to modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order only when it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The court held that Rugova’s motion did not fall within the specific categories listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although the motion sought potentially dispositive sanctions—striking Defendants’ answer and entering default judgment—the controlling question was the sanction that the magistrate judge actually imposed, not the sanction the moving party requested. Because Judge Lehrburger declined to impose a dispositive sanction, his decision was governed by the limited review standard in Rule 72(a).
After reviewing the record for clear error, the court found no error and declined to modify or set aside Judge Lehrburger’s order.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams overruled Plaintiff’s objections to the January 28, 2025 order. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims or impose the requested discovery sanctions; it addressed only the proper standard for reviewing Judge Lehrburger’s order and whether that order contained clear error or was contrary to law.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.