Filed: Apr. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER DONALD E. WALTER , District Judge . Before the court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motions for Entry of Remand Order filed by plaintiff Michael Ashford ("Ashford") and by third party defendant, Roger A. Porter ("Porter"), be denied. Docs. 213-14, 231. Having conducted an independent ( de novo ) review of the record, including the objections and response filed, the court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation. 1 As
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER DONALD E. WALTER , District Judge . Before the court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motions for Entry of Remand Order filed by plaintiff Michael Ashford ("Ashford") and by third party defendant, Roger A. Porter ("Porter"), be denied. Docs. 213-14, 231. Having conducted an independent ( de novo ) review of the record, including the objections and response filed, the court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation. 1 Ash..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
DONALD E. WALTER, District Judge.
Before the court is a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Motions for Entry of Remand Order filed by plaintiff Michael Ashford ("Ashford") and by third party defendant, Roger A. Porter ("Porter"), be denied. Docs. 213-14, 231. Having conducted an independent (de novo) review of the record, including the objections and response filed, the court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation.1
Ashford and Porter both filed motions for entry of a remand order pursuant to the judgment issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 26, 2018. Doc. 157. In that judgment, the Fifth Circuit disagreed with this court's finding that subject matter jurisdiction existed over the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, based on realignment of the parties. The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for en banc reconsideration filed by defendant Aviation Technical Services, Inc. ("ATS") on December 14, 2018, and issued its judgment, ordering remand of the case, as mandate. See Ashford v. Aeroframe Svcs., LLC, 907 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2018). With the parties' deadline for seeking review in the United States Supreme Court having passed and no motion to stay proceedings filed, Ashford and Porter have now moved for remand of the case to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. Doc. 213.
After the Fifth Circuit's mandate was issued, ATS filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Ashford, Aeroframe, and Porter, as well as their attorneys. Doc. 159. The sanctions motion relates to arguments asserted and representations made in support of Ashford's motion to remand and in subsequent proceedings. Since that time, briefing deadlines and a hearing date have been set on the sanctions motion.
On March 27, 2019, Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay issued a Report and Recommendation regarding the motions for entry of remand, wherein she "declined to remand any part of the case until [the court] can reach a conclusion on the allegations presented through ATS's sanctions motion." Doc. 231 at 3. This court must disagree with this conclusion and remand the matter to state court in accordance with the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, except for the pending sanctions issues.2 Therefore, the court DECLINES to adopt the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motions for Entry of Remand Order [Docs. 213-214] are GRANTED but only with respect to the original claims of Ashford. Those claims are remanded to the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Evangeline Parish, Louisiana. The sanctions motion remains pending before this court, and the parties' briefing deadlines remain the same.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED.
