UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. A&E FACTORY SERVICE, LLC, 6:14-cv-1987-Orl-41TBS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150127b03
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 5), which seeks to add a non-diverse Defendant. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith submitted a Report and Recommendation on January 5, 2015, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend. (Doc. 19, at 1, 8). In doing so, Judge Smith also considered Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Remand, wherein Plaintiffs argue that removal was untim
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 5), which seeks to add a non-diverse Defendant. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith submitted a Report and Recommendation on January 5, 2015, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend. (Doc. 19, at 1, 8). In doing so, Judge Smith also considered Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Remand, wherein Plaintiffs argue that removal was untime..
More
ORDER
CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 5), which seeks to add a non-diverse Defendant. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith submitted a Report and Recommendation on January 5, 2015, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend. (Doc. 19, at 1, 8). In doing so, Judge Smith also considered Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Remand, wherein Plaintiffs argue that removal was untimely. (Doc. 12, at 10-12).
After an independent de novo review of the record and noting that no objections were timely filed, this Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) filed on January 5, 2015, is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
3. To the extent that Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Remand (Doc. 12) requests that this case be remanded, that request is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
