St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Caterpillar, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 19 Motion to Remand. The court declines to adopt the 41 Report and Recommendation and finds that remand is appropriate. This case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 4/16/2012. (Attachments: # 1 CV 10-92 Order re: Bender Shipbuilding) (sdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ST. PAUL FIRE and MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
CATERPILLAR, INC., et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-0312-CG-C
This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 41), plaintiffs’ objection thereto (Docs. 42), the response
thereto of defendant Coverteam Inc.’s (Doc. 50), the response of defendant Caterpillar
Inc. (Doc. 51), and the response of defendant Thompson Tractor Co., Inc. (Doc. 52).
Upon a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which
objection is made, the undersigned declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation
and finds that remand is appropriate.
This action was removed to this court from the Circuit Court of Mobile County,
Alabama by defendants Coverteam, Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Thompson Tractor Co.,
Inc., who each filed separate notices of removal on June 18, 2010. (Docs. 1, 3, 4).
There are two related cases, Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc. v. Caterpillar,
Inc., et al., (CV-10-92-CG-C) and Seacor Marine, LLC v. Caterpillar, Inc., et al, (CV10-306-CG-C), which have similar Report and Recommendations with regard to
motions to remand. This court found in the Bender case that that action could not
have been brought in federal court pursuant to federal admiralty jurisdiction and
that the requisites for mandatory abstention, under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), had been
met. The circumstances supporting mandatory abstention in the Bender case are
virtually identical to the facts of this case. Accordingly, for the same reasons stated
in Bender, the court finds that mandatory abstention applies to this action.1 The
court further found in the Bender case that the case was also due to be remanded for
discretionary and equitable reasons. While some of the equitable considerations in
this case differ from those in Bender,2 the court still finds that this case should also
be remanded for predominantly the same discretionary and equitable reasons stated
in the Bender case.
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant
to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the report and
recommendation to which objection is made, the undersigned declines to adopt the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. It is ORDERED that
plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 19) is GRANTED and this case is hereby
REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2012 .
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 . The
clerk is directed to attach a copy of the Bender order entered this date as an
2 The most notable difference is that in Bender all of the parties and claims were not
properly removed to this court.
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?