Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

ALEYNIKOV v. THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., 15-2057 (KM). (2016)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20160107912 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER KEVIN McNULTY , District Judge . THIS MATTER having come before the Court by a motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (ECF No. 4) filed by the plaintiff, Sergey Aleynikov, through his counsel, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C. (Kevin H. Marino, Esq., John D. Tortorella, Esq., and Erez Davy, Esq., appearing); and Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer having filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 30); and Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 33) having been filed by the defe
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER having come before the Court by a motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (ECF No. 4) filed by the plaintiff, Sergey Aleynikov, through his counsel, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, P.C. (Kevin H. Marino, Esq., John D. Tortorella, Esq., and Erez Davy, Esq., appearing); and Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer having filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (ECF No. 30); and Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 33) having been filed by the defendant, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ("GS Group"), through its counsel, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (A. Ross Pearison, Esq., and James Van Splinter, appearing), and Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (Christopher E. Duffy, appearing pro hac vice); and Aleynikov having filed a Response (ECF No. 34); and GS Group having filed a Reply (ECF No. 35); and the Court having reviewed de novo the R&R, the parties' submissions, and prior filings in the case, and decided the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78; for the reasons expressed in the R&R filed by Magistrate Judge Hammer and the accompanying Memorandum Opinion; and for good cause shown:

IT IS this 6th day of January, 2016,

ORDERED that the Objections of GS Group (ECF No. 33) are DENIED; that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) is ADOPTED in its entirety; that the motion to remand (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), because the removal was not authorized by law under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(b)(2); and it is further

ORDERED, that the case is REMANDED to the Delaware Court of Chancery, where it was filed as C.A. No. 10636-VCL.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer