Integrity Solutions, Ltd. v. MCS Consulting, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN
INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MCS CONSULTING, INC.,
ENERGY SYSTEMS CONSULTING, LLC,
MAKERS SOLUTIONS, LLC,
GEO-PRIME, LLC, companies,
MEAGAN CUMBERLAND,
JOEL LINDSTROM,
KYLE MADER, individuals
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NON-DISPOSITIVE ORDERS (DKTS. 29 & 45)
The above-referenced Objections to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter’s
November 6 and 26, 2024 non-dispositive orders (Dkts. 24 and 37, respectively) are
before the Court. Plaintiff filed a Response only to the Objection to Judge Neureiter’s
November 26 order. Dkt. 52. Because Judge Neureiter’s November 26 order is neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the Objection is overruled. The Objection to his
November 	6 	order 	is 	overruled 	as 	moot 	because 	the 	Scheduling 	Conference
Defendants sought to vacate has already occurred.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 7

2
BACKGROUND
Defendants have clogged the docket with their efforts to avoid discovery out of
paranoia of waiving their jurisdictional defenses through their conduct. They can rest
assured that they’ve adequately preserved those defenses and the record reflects no
waiver. See, e.g., Healthbookplus Holdings Inc. v. Jardine, No. 1:23-CV-00927-SKC-
JPO, 2024 WL 4227659, at *4 (D. Colo. Sept. 18, 2024) (defendant properly preserved
defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by asserting it in his answer followed by his
timely motion to dismiss on that basis).
As is apparent from the record, Defendants have quintupled their requests to
put off discovery. First, on November 5, 2024, they filed a motion to vacate the
Scheduling Conference. Dkt. 22. In that motion, they sought to vacate the Scheduling
Conference and stay any discovery until “after Rule 12 motion practice has been
completed and the Defendants have filed their responsive pleading—[because doing
so] preserves the resources of the parties to propose a meaningful and comprehensive
Scheduling Order and furthers the objective of judicial economy.” Id. at p.4. After this
Court’s referral of the motion to vacate to Judge Neureiter, he denied that motion by
Minute Order on November 6, 2024. Dkt. 24.
Next, the parties attended the Scheduling Conference on November 14. Dkts.
27, 28. At the conference, Defendants again objected to proceeding with discovery
while their motions challenging personal jurisdiction were pending. Dkt. 29, p.4
(“During the conference, Defendants again raised their objections and concerns about
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 7

3
subjecting the PJ defendants to litigation deadlines and discovery obligations and
argued for adoption of their proposed case schedule. In response, the Court noted that
Defendants’ ‘point is heard and rejected . . . .’”). Over Defendants’ objection, Judge
Neureiter entered a Scheduling Order imposing a discovery schedule and related
limitations. Dkt. 28.
Third, 	on 	November 	19—five 	days 	after 	the 	Scheduling 	Conference—
Defendants filed their Objection to Judge Neureiter’s November 6 order. This
Objection, currently before the Court, argues there is a risk of waiving a personal
jurisdiction defense by participating in discovery absent a stay. See generally Dkt. 29.
Fourth, on November 22, Defendants filed an “emergency” motion to stay
pending a ruling on their motions to dismiss. Dkt. 35. After this Court’s referral of
the motion to stay to Judge Neureiter, he construed the motion as a motion for
reconsideration, finding: “Now—three days after filing the objection to the prior
orders—Defendants have filed this supposed ‘emergency’ motion repeating the same
arguments and asking for the same relief that previously has been twice considered
and rejected (at least by this Magistrate Judge). This is in effect a motion for
reconsideration.” Dkt. 37, p.3. Judge Neureiter then analyzed the motion under the
three grounds for reconsideration from Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1012 (10th Cir. 2000), and he denied the motion. Despite construing the motion as
one seeking reconsideration, he also weighed the discretionary String Cheese Incident
factors in deciding whether a stay was warranted. Dkt. 37, p.5; see String Cheese
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 7

4
Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 05-cv-01934-LTB-PA, 2006 WL 894955, (D.
Colo. March 30, 2006).
For their fifth bite at the apple, Defendants have now objected to Judge
Neureiter’s November 26 order. Dkt. 45. They argue Judge Neureiter’s construction
of their motion to stay as a motion for reconsideration is contrary to law warranting
de novo review, and Judge Neureiter’s “failure to undertake a comprehensive String
Cheese analysis was clearly erroneous,” as was his assumption that “this case is likely
to proceed in some venue.” Id. at pp.5-6, 8.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon a timely objection, a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate
judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter to the extent the order is “clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). This standard requires affirmance unless
the district judge is left with the “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake was
made. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988). This
is a high bar. Box Elder Kids, LLC v. Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, No. 20-cv-2352-
WJM-JPO, 2024 WL 3963505, at *5 (D. Colo. Aug. 16, 2024). It leaves no room for
modifying or setting aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order simply because
the district judge might have ruled differently in deciding the matter in the first
instance. Id.
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 7

5
ANALYSIS
The Court overrules the Objection to Judge Neureiter’s November 6 order as
moot. Defendants’ original Opposed Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference, filed
November 5, sought to vacate the November 14 Scheduling Conference. Dkt. 22, p.22
(“WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, Defendants respectfully request that
the November 14, 2024, scheduling conference and all related deadlines be vacated
and reset for a later date and time of the Court’s choosing.”). Exercising his discretion,
Judge Neureiter denied this request and the parties attended the Scheduling
Conference. Dkts. 24, 27, 28. Defendants filed their Objection five days after the
Scheduling Conference, on November 19. As a result, the relief sought by Defendants’
original motion—vacatur of the Scheduling Conference—is moot.
Concerning Defendants’ Objection to the November 26 order, first, their
argument that it was contrary to law to construe their motion stay as a motion for
reconsideration misapprehends the law. Trial courts are given wide latitude to
control their dockets and execute the business of the court. See Jones v. Azar, 772 F.
App’x 692, 699 (10th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e will not interfere with the trial court’s exercise
of its discretion to control its docket and dispatch its business[.]” (cleaned up)); Hunt
v. Just in Time Cargo, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-1077-KG-JFR, 2022 WL 35826, at *5 (D.N.M.
Jan. 4, 2022) (“[E]xercising its discretion to control its docket and dismiss duplicative
complaints, this Court dismisses the Schmidt case in its entirety.”). This includes the
construction of motions as the court deems appropriate. See Sturm v. Weber, No. 21-
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 7

6
CV-0684-WJM-GPG, 2022 WL 2176287, at *1 (D. Colo. June 16, 2022) (construing
defendants’ motion as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6)); United States v. Pearson, No.
6:97-CR-010026-JTM-1, 2018 WL 5436459, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 25, 2018) (construing
defendant’s motion as a motion for reconsideration of a non-dispositive order under
the court’s local rules); Zone Five, LLC v. Textron Aviation, Inc., No. 20-1059-DDC-
BGS, 2023 WL 5672253, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 1, 2023) (construing plaintiff’s motion
as a motion to amend).
Judge Neureiter’s exercise of discretion to construe Defendants’ motion as a
motion for reconsideration was hardly contrary to law. And Defendants cite no
authority 	suggesting 	otherwise. 	It 	was 	instead an 	appropriate 	exercise 	of 	his
discretion particularly where, as here, the motion to stay was materially redundant
of Defendants’ three prior stay requests rejected by Judge Neureiter. Dkt. 37, p.2
(“Defendants have three times before made this same plea.”).
Because 	Judge 	Neureiter 	properly 	exercised 	his 	discretion 	to 	construe
Defendants’ motion as a motion for reconsideration, he likewise committed no error
(clear or otherwise) in his analysis of the String Cheese Incident factors since those
factors do not pertain to a motion for reconsideration. This includes his assumption
that this case is “likely to proceed in some venue” because that assumption was part
of his analysis of the inapplicable String Cheese Incident factors. Id. at p.5.
In construing Defendants’ motion as a motion for reconsideration, Judge
Neureiter correctly applied the factors from Servants of Paraclete in denying the
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 7

7
motion. His application of those factors was not contrary to law and his findings in
evaluating those factors were not clearly erroneous.
* 	* 	*
For the reasons shared above, the Court finds nothing in the Objection at Dkt.
45 	meets 	Defendants’ 	high 	burden 	of 	demonstrating 	Judge 	Neureiter’s 	non-
dispositive order at Dkt. 37 is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Objection has
not left this Court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. The
Objection at Dkt. 45 is OVERRULED. And the Objection at Dkt. 29 is OVERRULED
as MOOT.
DATED: April 23, 2025
BY THE COURT:
_______________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-02519-SKC-NRN Document 64 filed 04/23/25 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 7