Frontier Bank et al v. Jones & Jones Construction LLC et al
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMITTING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE to examine subject matter jurisdiction, ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge T Michael Putnam for all further proceedings. Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/11/14. (ASL)
2014 Aug-12 AM 10:15
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Heritage Bank of the South,
as successor to Frontier Bank;
Jones & Jones Construction LLC,
and Vernon C. Jones;
Case No.: 2:13-cv-1084-TMP
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
RECOMMITTING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On May 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
recommending that (1) the Court grant Heritage Bank’s motion for summary
judgment, or in the alternative for default judgment (Doc. 19), to the extent that
default be entered in favor of plaintiff Heritage Bank and against defendant Jones
& Jones, on the claim for breach of the note; (2) summary judgment be entered in
favor of Heritage Bank and against Mr. Jones on the breach of guaranty claim; and
(3) summary judgment be entered in favor of the FDIC on any counterclaim
asserted by Mr. Jones. (Doc. 19, p. 12). No party filed an objection to the Report
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
Court file, including the Report and Recommendation, the Court ACCEPTS and
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the FDIC appears as a party “only to
the extent that it is a defendant to a counterclaim of breach of some unwritten
agreement to which [the defendant] alludes in his letter.” (Doc. 19, p. 10). Thus,
“the only claims before the court are the plaintiff’s claims of breach of the note,
and breach of the guaranty.” (Doc. 19, p. 10 n. 5). In light of this finding and
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court RECOMMITS this action to the
Magistrate Judge to examine subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court
asks the Magistrate Judge to please address whether the Court may properly
exercise subject matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule1 or under
28 U.S.C §1441(c).
The Court asks the Clerk to please TERM Doc. 19.
DONE and ORDERED this August 11, 2014.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 828 (2002)
(holding that district court did not properly exercise jurisdiction on the basis of a compulsory
counterclaim which arose under federal law when the plaintiff’s claims did not provide a basis
for federal jurisdiction).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?