Hoff v. Miller

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, as set out - Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the order to remand and the objections 14 thereto, the Court is of the opinion that the object ions are due to be and are hereby OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's order to remand is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and ACCEPTED. This action is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. Signed by Magistrate Judge John H England, III on 1/30/14. (CTS, )

FILED
2015 Jan-30 PM 04:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN HOFF,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff;
vs.
MARY MILLER,
Defendant.

2:14-cv-2297-JHE

ORDER
On January 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an order remanding this case
to state court, effective fifteen days from that date. (Doc. 13.) On January 27, 2015,
before that order became effective, Eliot Hoff filed objections to the order. (Doc. 14.)
The Magistrate Judge subsequently directed the Clerk to forward the order and entire
court file to a district judge randomly selected for the purpose of reviewing the order
to remand; the undersigned was selected.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the order to remand and the objections thereto, the Court is of the
opinion that the objections are due to be and are hereby OVERRULED and the
Magistrate Judge’s order to remand is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and
Page 1 of 2

ACCEPTED.1 This action is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama.
Done this 30th day of January 2015.

L. Scott Coogler
United States District Judge
[160704]

1

In addition to the explanation as to why remand is warranted as stated by the Magistrate
Judge in his order, this Court wishes to add the following. Assuming solely for the purposes of
argument that Eliot Hoff is not a plaintiff in this action and/or that the counterclaim could be
considered an original complaint, Hoff’s removal of this action was not timely under 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b) as more than thirty days elapsed between receipt by the plaintiffs (the Hoffs) through service
or otherwise of the counterclaim and the removing of the action.
Page 2 of 2