United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION AND
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
Walton Pratt, Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant John Casey's
(“Mr. Casey”) Motion to Dismiss or, in the
alternative, stay the lawsuit filed against him filed by
Plaintiff INDYCAR, LLC (“INDYCAR”). (Filing
No. 49.) Mr. Casey alleges this action should be
dismissed or stayed, because INDYCAR has failed to join
non-party Boston Grand Prix, LLC (“BGP”) as a
necessary party under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(7) and 19. (Filing No. 49.) Magistrate Judge
Mark Dinsmore issued his Report and Recommendation on each of
these motions. (Filing No. 59); seeFed. R.
Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate
Judge recommended the motions be denied, (Filing No. 59
at 15), and Mr. Casey timely filed an objection,
(Filing No. 61). For the reasons that follow, the
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the objection is
case arises out of the cancellation of an IndyCar race that
was originally planned to take place in September 2016 in
Boston, Massachusetts. The dispute in this matter surrounds
INDYCAR's claims that Mr. Casey breached the Personal
Guaranty that he executed in INDYCAR's favor,
guaranteeing certain sanction fee payments owed by non-party
BGP. Mr. Casey believes this action cannot proceed because
necessary party, BGP, is not included as a party in this
matter. Mr. Casey contends an essential element of liability
is proof that BGP breached the underlying race agreement,
therefore BGP is a necessary party to this action. The
pertinent facts of each motion are set forth in the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Court
will dispense with further recitation.
district court may assign dispositive motions to a magistrate
judge, in which case the magistrate judge may submit to the
district judge only a report and recommended disposition,
including any proposed findings of fact. Schur v. L.A.
Weight Loss Ctrs., Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir.
2009); see28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). “The magistrate judge's
recommendation on a dispositive matter is not a final order,
and the district judge makes the ultimate decision to adopt,
reject, or modify it.” Schur, 577 F.3d at 760;
see28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, a judge
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” Id. If a party fails to object to a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, or objects
on some issues and not others, he waives appellate review of
the issues to which he has not objected. Johnson v. Zema
Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Non-dispositive motions are reviewed under the “clearly
erroneous or contrary to law” standard. Fed.R.Civ.P.
Casey argues that dismissal is required because BGP is a
necessary party to this lawsuit and has not been joined.
(Filing No. 61 at 4-5.) In short, the errors alleged
by Mr. Casey all turn on one finding in the Report and
Recommendation, involving the interpretation of a Personal
Guaranty (“Guaranty”) signed by Mr. Casey and
INDYCAR. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Guaranty
between the parties was unconditional, or absolute.
(Filing No. 59 at 8-9.) As such, Mr. Casey's
liability in the event of breach is not preconditioned on the
occurrence of any collateral event. (Filing No. 59 at
8-9.) Mr. Casey contends that this finding is erroneous
and argues that, as a precondition to his liability under the
Guaranty, there must first be a breach by non-party BGP.
(Filing No. 61 at 2-5.) Therefore, he argues, this
case must be dismissed, because BGP has not been joined.
(Filing No. 61 at 2-5.)
Court disagrees with Mr. Casey's interpretation of the
Guaranty. For precisely the reasons laid out in the Report
and Recommendation, the Guaranty is absolute and does not
predicate Mr. Casey's liability on the occurrence of any
breach by BGP. (Filing No. 59 at 8-10.) The
unambiguous language of the Guaranty makes clear that it is
unconditional, (Filing No. 35-2), and contrary to
Mr. Casey's assertions, that language does not conflict
with other agreements between the parties, such as the Event
Agreement, (Filing No. 34-2).
Casey's remaining arguments are all predicated on the
contract interpretation that this Court has rejected, no
further discussion is necessary. The Court also notes that
Mr. Casey fails to develop his argument as to why this action
should be stayed, as opposed to dismissed, so the Court
considers it abandoned.
foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED,
and the ...