LEE-BOLTON et al v. KOPPERS INC et al

Filing 75

ORDER adopting 58 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 30 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 9/13/2011. (kdm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
LISA LEE-BOLTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-253-SPM/GRJ

KOPPERS INC., et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 58), which recommends that the
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court (doc. 30) be denied. Plaintiff has
been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States
Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiffs filed objections (doc. 64) and a reply in
support of those objections (doc. 73). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,
Section 636(b)(1), I find that the Report and Recommendation is correct and
should be adopted.
Plaintiffs raised objections to the Report and Recommendation, all of
which should be denied. First, Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings
regarding the number of putative class members. However, the Court finds that

the Report and Recommendation makes an accurate accounting of the potential
class members. Since that number exceeds 100, as required by the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), this prong of determining whether this
case was properly removed to this Court has been met.1 Plaintiffs also object to
the Report and Recommendation on the grounds that the $5,000,000
jurisdictional threshold has not been met for proper removal under CAFA. This
Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s method for determining the aggregate
amount in controversy is accurate. As the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, this prong of determining whether removal to this Court was proper
has also been met.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 58) is
adopted and incorporated by reference into this order.

2.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (doc. 30) is denied.

1

The Court notes that included with Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation (doc. 64) was a copy of a complaint filed by Carla Melgarejo in a
separate action. Plaintiffs attached this complaint as evidence that Melgarejo is
represented by her own counsel in another action and should therefore not be included
as a putative class member in this action. If this Court were to accept this evidence and
make an ultimate determination that Melgarejo should not be included as a putative
class member, this would only change the putative class member count from 109 to
108. Since there would still be over 100 putative class members, this issue does not
warrant further discussion.
2

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2011.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge

3