Praetorian Insurance Company v. Axia Contracting, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 17-cr-2034-WJM-KAS
PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant,
v.
AXIA CONTRACTING, LLC, and
255 BLACKHAWK HOSPITALITY, LLP,
Defendants-Counter Plaintiffs.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
TO ORDER AWARDING SANCTIONS
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Praetorian Insurance Company’s
(“Plaintiff”) Objections to Order Awarding Sanctions (“Objection”). (ECF No. 157.)
Defendants Axia Contracting, LLC and 255 Blackhawk Hospitality, LLC (“Defendants”) filed
a response. (ECF No. 160.) For the reasons stated below, the Objection is overruled, and
then-Magistrate Judge Crews’s Order re: Motion for Sanctions, Motion to Extend
Discovery, and Motion to Amend Complaint (“First Sanctions Order”) (ECF No. 137) and
Order Awarding Sanctions (“Second Sanctions Order”) (ECF No. 152) are affirmed.
As a threshold matter, the Court agrees with Defendants that the Objection is
untimely and must therefore be summarily overruled. (ECF No. 160 at 1–2.) Though the
Objection purports to relate to the Second Sanctions Order (see ECF No. 157 at 1), its
substance relates entirely to a ruling made in the First Sanctions Order (i.e., the
impropriety of dispositive sanctions). (Compare ECF No. 137, with ECF No. 157.) That
Case No. 1:17-cv-02034-WJM-KAS Document 215 filed 02/12/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
Order was issued on June 23, 2022, 174 days before the Objection was filed, long after
the 14-day deadline to object had passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Even if the Objection were timely, the Court would still overrule it. The Court
perceives no clear error or ruling contrary to law in either the First or Second Sanctions
Order.1 Thus, even if the Court were to consider the Objection’s merits, it would not set
aside either of Judge Crews’s orders.2
1 When reviewing an objection to a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling, the Court
must affirm the ruling unless it finds that the ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Ariza v. U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 131, 133 (D.
Colo. 1996).
2 Plaintiff “recognizes” that the Tenth Circuit has previously held that “[e]ven [when] a
movant requests a sanction that would be dispositive, if the magistrate judge does not impose a
dispositive sanction the order falls under Rule 72(a) rather than Rule 72(b).” (ECF No. 157;
Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1519 (10th Cir. 1995).) Citing a footnote from a
Report and Recommendation submitted by an out-of-circuit Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff invites this
Court to reconsider Gomez’s holding because that decision “did not consider the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),” the statute underlying portions of Rule 72(b). (ECF No. 157 (citing Tilyard
v. O’Reilly Auto Parts, Inc., 2012 WL 5250534, at *1 n.1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2012)).) The Court
respects that the Magistrate Judge in Tilyard made a concerted effort to exercise the power of his
office within the bounds set out by law. In applying Gomez’s holding with fidelity, the Court does
the same.
Federal courts and their judges must be careful to respect their role within the judiciary’s
explicit hierarchy. Higher courts carefully guard their own roles. See, e.g., Bosse v. Oklahoma,
580 U.S. 1, 3 (2016 (It is the Supreme “Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its
precedents”); United States v. Maloid, 71 F.4th 795, 808 (10th Cir. 2023) (“The Supreme Court has
reminded us, ‘If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on
reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which
directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’”) (quoting
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc.,490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989); United States v.
Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 709 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990) (“A district court must follow the precedent of
this circuit . . . .”). Lower courts, in turn, fulfill their roles by respecting their duty to apply governing
precedent. See, e.g., United States v. Hay, 601 F. Supp. 3d 943, 952 (D. Kan. 2022) (“In the
absence of clear Supreme Court precedent overruling [a Tenth Circuit precedent], this Court will
‘follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the [Tenth Circuit] the prerogative of overruling
its own decisions.’”) (quoting Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 207 (1997) (second alteration in
original)).
As such, the Court applies Gomez, and considers the merits of the Objection (in the
alternative) under Rule 72(a).
Case No. 1:17-cv-02034-WJM-KAS Document 215 filed 02/12/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Objections to Order Awarding Sanctions (ECF No. 157) is OVERRULED;
2. Judge Crews’s Orders (ECF Nos. 137, 152) are AFFIRMED; and
3. This action remains set for a Final Trial Preparation Conference on October 4,
2024, and a 6-day jury trial to begin on October 21, 2024.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
______________________
William J. Martínez
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:17-cv-02034-WJM-KAS Document 215 filed 02/12/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3