Jones et al v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 2/7/13. (KGE, )

FILED
2013 Feb-07 PM 03:55
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EDWIN JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARTFORD
al.,

FIRE

INS.

CO.,

Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
et }
}
}
}

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-AR-2879-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 16, 2013, the magistrate judge to whom the aboveentitled

case

was

assigned,

but

who

was

not

granted

final

disposition authority by the parties, reported and recommended that
the motion to remand filed by plaintiffs be granted.

The report

and recommendation provided that any objections must be filed
within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed, whereupon the
case was reassigned to the undersigned for the purpose of agreeing
or disagreeing with the report and recommendation.
Although the absence of objections by the removing defendants
might

suggest

that

the

magistrate

judge

and

plaintiffs

have

convinced defendants that they removed the case out of time,
creating

an

irremediable

procedural

defect,

this

court

has

considered de novo the entire file, including the defendant’s
opposition to the motion to remand filed on October 15, 2012, and
has independently concluded that the magistrate judge reached the
correct conclusion.

Therefore, this court CONFIRMS and ADOPTS as

its

opinion

the

report

and

recommendation

submitted

by

the

magistrate judge, with the following addendum:
In Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 868 F.Supp.2d
1333 (N.D. Ala. 2012), this very court made it crystal clear that
at the moment a state court plaintiff seeks unspecified damages of
various kinds, such as punitive damages, or emotional distress, or
attorneys’ fees, the claim automatically is deemed to exceed
$75,000 and becomes removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

This court

can easily discern from plaintiffs’ amendment the existence of the
jurisdictional amount. These defendants should have done the same.
Not having done so, plaintiffs’ timely motion to remand for an
untimely removal will, by separate order, be granted.
DONE this 7th day of February, 2013.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE