JUDGMENT

JAMES T. TRIMBLE, Jr., District Judge.

For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 28) of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, after consideration of the Objections filed by the plaintiffs and Aeroframe Services, LLC (Rec. Docs. 31, 32), consideration of the Responses filed by Aviation Technical Services, Inc. (2:14-cv-00983, Warner v. Aeroframe Services, LLC, Rec. Doc. 42; 2:14-cv-00990, Blanton v. Aeroframe Services, LLC, Rec. Doc. 29),1 an independent review of the record, and a de novo determination of the issues; the court determines that the findings are correct under applicable law. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation which bases its conclusions on the Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson Law Firm's ("the Cox Law Firm") actual concurrent representation of the plaintiffs and Roger Porter, the sole member and CEO of Aeroframe Services, LLC. The parties are realigned based on the Cox Law Firm's argument that the plaintiffs and Porter have validly waived the conflict of interest which stems from the concurrent representation. This necessary waiver could not be valid unless the plaintiffs and Aeroframe Services, LLC are not adverse parties. Unless the plaintiffs and Aeroframe Services, LLC have resolved their claims, this representation would create a nonconsentable concurrent conflict of interest. See La. St. Bar Art. 16, Rules of Prof. Conduct Rule 1.7(b). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Roger Porter's Motion to Remand and Motion for Attorney's Fees (Rec. Doc. 8) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Motion for Attorney's Fees (Rec. Doc. 10) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Aeroframe Services, LLC's Motion to Remand (Rec. Doc. 12) is DENIED.