Norman et al v. Webster et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DION NORMAN, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-240
JACQUES WEBSTER, II, ET AL. SECTION “O”
ORDER
Before the Court are the objections1 filed by Defendants Sony Music
Entertainment, Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC, and Jacques Webster, II
(“Defendants”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), to U.S. Magistrate
Judge Dossier’s Order2 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion3 for
leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery. Also before the Court are
Defendants’ objections,4 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), to
Magistrate Judge Dossier’s Report and Recommendation5 recommending that
Defendants’ motion6 to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of personal
1 ECF No. 52.
2 ECF No. 49.
3 ECF No. 23. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 72(a) applies to this Court’s review of this motion because
the motion for discovery is “a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense.” A party may
object to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive motion within 14 days after being served with
a copy. Id. A district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 755 F.3d 802, 806
(5th Cir. 2014) (explaining that the court reviews the magistrate judge’s factual findings under a
clearly erroneous standard and legal conclusions under a de novo standard).
4 ECF No. 52. The Court notes that Defendants combined their objections to the Order and to
the Report and Recommendation into a single filing.
5 ECF No. 50.
6 ECF No. 37. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 72(b) applies to the motion to dismiss because it is a “pretrial
matter[] dispositive of a claim or defense.” Under Rule 72(b)(3) governing the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendations, the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to” and “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” See Davidson
v. Georgia-Pac., L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 762 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[R]ulings by a magistrate judge on
Case 2:24-cv-00240-BSL-EJD Document 65 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

2
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and for improper venue
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) be denied without prejudice to
Defendants’ right to re-urge their motion after the limited jurisdictional discovery is
complete.
The Court has conducted a de novo7 review of Plaintiffs’ motion for
jurisdictional discovery, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the responses to those
motions, the Magistrate Judge’s Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, Defendants’ objections to the Order, Defendants’ objections to the
Report and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. After a thorough
review, the Court concludes that the Order should be affirmed and the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted because Defendants’ objections to the Order and
Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation are without merit. The
Court hereby (1) affirms the Order; and (2) approves the Report and Recommendation
and adopts it as its opinion in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ objections8 to Magistrate Judge
Dossier’s Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for limited
dispositive matters . . . are mere recommendations subject to de novo review when properly challenged
by the losing party.”).
7 Although Judge Dossier’s Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for
leave to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery (ECF No. 49) is subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 72(a),
for efficiency and thoroughness the Court chose to conduct a de novo review of that Order as well as of
the Report and Recommendation.
8 ECF No. 37.
Case 2:24-cv-00240-BSL-EJD Document 65 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

3
jurisdictional discovery are OVERRULED; the Order9 is AFFIRMED.
Defendants shall provide the required discovery on or before February 9, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ objections10 to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. The
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation11 is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs’
motion12 to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue is therefore
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendants’ right to re-urge their motion
after the limited jurisdictional discovery is complete in accordance with the adopted
Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion13 for leave to file
notice of supplemental authority in support of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion to
dismiss is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of December, 2025.
BRANDON S. LONG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 ECF No. 49.
10 ECF No. 52.
11 ECF No. 50.
12 ECF No. 37.
13 ECF No. 62.
Case 2:24-cv-00240-BSL-EJD Document 65 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3