Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sampson v. Red Frog Events, LLC, 17-01671-BAJ-EVVD. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20180830852 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2018
Summary: RULING AND ORDER BRIAN A. JACKSON , District Judge . Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69) under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and denying Plaintiffs request for attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 69). The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, under 28 U.S.C. 638(b)(1), they had
More

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69) under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiffs Motion to Remand and denying Plaintiffs request for attorney's fees and costs. (Doc. 69).

The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, under 28 U.S.C. § 638(b)(1), they had fourteen days from the date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein. (Doc. 69). Defendants Mary Kreke, Marcus Edwards, and North South Renovations filed objections. (Docs. 72-73).1 Having carefully considered the underlying matter, and related filings, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and hereby adopts the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.

#20 JDC — certified

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 69), is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Doc. 16) is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to the 20th Judicial District Court for the Parish of West Feliciana, State of Louisiana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 40) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49) is DENIED AS MOOT.

FootNotes


1. Defendants argue that the amount in controversy is met. (Doc. 72 at p. 1).
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