SAPA PRECISION TUBING ROCKLEDGE, LLC v. TEX-MEX RECYCLING, LLC., 6:16-cv-22-Orl-31KRS. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160519c02
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 18, 2016
Latest Update: May 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . On April 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Spaulding entered her Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 30). Defendant filed an objection to that Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) contending that Plaintiff had not been forthright in regard to its citizenship for diversity purposes. In order to resolve that factual issue, this Court issued an Order on April 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . On April 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Spaulding entered her Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 30). Defendant filed an objection to that Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) contending that Plaintiff had not been forthright in regard to its citizenship for diversity purposes. In order to resolve that factual issue, this Court issued an Order on April 19, 2016 r..
More
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.
On April 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Spaulding entered her Report and Recommendation recommending that this case be remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 30). Defendant filed an objection to that Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) contending that Plaintiff had not been forthright in regard to its citizenship for diversity purposes. In order to resolve that factual issue, this Court issued an Order on April 19, 2016 requiring Plaintiff to list the name, address and citizenship of each of its members (Doc. 34). On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff complied with that Order, admitting for jurisdictional purposes that Plaintiff is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois (Doc. 35).
Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends in its response that this Court cannot sustain Defendant's objection to the Report and Recommendation unless it concludes that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Whether reviewed de novo or under the more deferential standard, it has been established that complete diversity exists and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant's objection to the Report and Recommendation is SUSTAINED. In light of the information provided by Plaintiff, the Report and Recommendation is rejected with respect to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
