Omni Health and Fitness of Mobile, LLC v. Stephenson et al

Filing 72

ORDER ADOPTING 67 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's 26 Motion to Strike is DENIED, defendant Stephenson's 59 Motion to Strike is DENIED, Defendant Stephenson's 3 Motion to Re-align the Parties is DENIED, and plaintiff's 30 MOTION to Remand is GRANTED. Therefore, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 11/7/2012. (mab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OMNI HEALTH AND FITNESS OF
MOBILE, LLC, a limited liability
Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOYT STEPHENSON, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL NO. 12-00407-CG-B
)
)
)
)

ORDER
This matter is before the court on the objections of defendant Hoyt
Stephenson (“Stephenson”) (Doc. 71) to the Report and Recommendation of
the magistrate judge, in which the magistrate judge recommended that this
court deny Stephenson’s motion to realign the parties and grant the
plaintiff’s motion to remand the instant case to the Circuit Court of Mobile
County (Doc. 67).
The court has reviewed Stephenson’s objection and considered the
points raised therein. Stephenson argues that the magistrate judge based
her recommendation “largely on speculation about [the parties’] possible
positions.” (Doc. 71 at 13). However, in urging this court to reject the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, Stephenson himself invites the court to
speculate about the competing interests and positions among the parties and
essentially make determinations regarding the merits of the underlying case.

1

See id. Because all doubts about jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of
remand, the court finds that remand is appropriate in this case.
Therefore, 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
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
It is ORDERED that defendant Stephenson’s motion to strike (Doc.
26) is DENIED, plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 59) is DENIED, defendant
Stephenson’s motion to re-align the parties (Doc. 3) is DENIED, and
plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 30) is GRANTED. Therefore, this action is
hereby REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.
DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November 2012.
/s/ Callie V.S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2