Hammontree et al v. Georgia Freightways Corporation et al
Filing
63
ORDER dismissing as moot 41 Motion for Hearing; dismissing as moot 43 Motion for Hearing; dismissing as moot 49 Motion for Protective Order; dismissing as moot 49 Motion to Quash; granting 7 Motion to Remand to State Court of Chatham County. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/29/17. (wwp)
IN
THE UNITED
S DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVAI{NAH DIVISION
TINA HAMMONTREE, S IhE
daughter of Gfend4
surviving
Eay Adams and as the executor
oI Lhe eslaLe of Glenda Fay
Adarrs, deceased, and CYNTHIA
a
OWENBY, s the surviving
, -o r ,.r:^ , , r L ! r
u lu jh e a
af
|ll cnd;
Fd y
. -
U. S. DISTRICT
COURT
SouthernDistrictof GA
Fited In Office
M
r1\-rartr>,
DeputyCterk
deceased,
CASENO, CV416_2BO
GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY;
GEORGIA FREIGHTWAYS
CORPORAT]ON,.CMA-CGM (AMERIqA) ,
LLC; SOUTHATLANTIC
C O N S O L I D A T E DC H A S S I S P O O L L I C ;
CONSOL]DATED CHASSIS MANAGEMENT
LLC; INTERPOOL, INC., d/b/ a
DIRECT
Trac Intermodal;
CHASSISLINK, INC.; and DAVID J'
GIBBONS;
o
Court
is
Owenby's Motlon
to
Before
Cynthia
that
case
r :s v !rv rio
e ^^ a :
the
Ptaintiffs'
fof.Low,
is
REIBIIDED to
Dlrinri
Because this
Ffct
case is
RDER
Remand. (Doc. 1.)
Motj-on
the
ra.rrracj-
Hammontree and
Tlna
Plaintiffs
State
fr-'r
remanded to
For
GRANTED IN
is
Court
Altclrnc\/qt
the
State
of
the
reasons
PART and
this
r\L -+1,- -'.
a^,.nf
<,
!uurruy.
fees
is
DENIED.
aff
pending
Court'
Clerk
D o c . 4 3 ; D o c . 4 9 ) a r e D I S M I S S E DA S M O O T . T h e
lDoc. 4I;
motions
D I R E C T E Dt o
is
of Court
c]ose this
case.
BACKCROUND
case invofves
This
in
a
r,.rinr
^nr
'.ri.h
' ra i ' ar
was
1, Attach.
n r n rv i v r ^ a r l
r
ucv
v!
fo
DFf tr1dant
\
the
In
r.a-_..4
m
r
negfigently
resulted
in
r-lair
that
he
Georgia
wAs "q.r
fn-
hir
vehicfe
Plaintiffs
in
h6.ri n
c i nns
^r
violatlon
a.Lso maintain
nrov'
q-At
statutes,
!!Yrrr
nf
that
"the
of
nl- ..\rv
whom was
/n^. .
\ !vr
Fro
iahtwrrrc
had some connection
trailer,
tractor
ro..Ittlef
violated,
or
nnF
r.)
il lness
..rtFra-e
49 C.E.R.
M^r^r
a^rr
2
io r
r.r-v
Whife
nrOrrieiOnS
most
Lo make iu
as
Che
COnmeIC-LaL
(Id. )
violated
cr
this
are
Defendant Gibbons
S 392.3."
Gibbons
which
support
Plaintiffs
:-d
Delendanl
rhat
ATT\-UC
do contend that
Defe dant
redera]
Lractor
/^^-^^.rii^n
evr|Jv,
ca.\rdi:
9l 27.)
Gibbons
faliorre
r-nrrr
The
)
the
Great WesL Casualcy Company
the
(Id.
Defendant
l^
trailer
aL
Gibbons,
i^L.t-,.,^!,-
fi- -r -E.r f f ^
alleges
Lv
2-3.
at
nofandrnt-
operated
innai red hv
'1
EI'T,IIILLLLJ
VA-:nr.q
vr
r'ractor
(rd. $$ 46-s0. )
coffision.
. : i r ir r r. L 9
t r
hyr z
v
a
IntersLate-16
nr ng d e f e n d a n t s a l I
complaint,
Gibbons
r''^
fnr
conl ainer.
the
^i
9to
_.\r76r:^.
Tha
qhi nni no
fhe
Geof
Gfenda Fay Adams
of
Defendant
by
2 9 . ) D ef e n d a n t
3 9lll 25,
1?
alnnrr
/-.-
driven
i nerrr^n/_a
q
i T,-i
ir-
T-r^rc{-1ra-oq
he'ncl
iv 1 \ /
J
vs
v
)
"rrzorl
j -- a f f
death
caused by
accident
cr nnnod
wi fh
i-rerr-hanr-rc
, r-! m4n l
v
!y
vehicle
horribLe
tragic
the
f or-\r
unsa[e
mOUOf
Plaintiffs
additionaf
p a / ' r r 1 l , aI i a n <
r<
dat
a rmi
narl
.-ii cnnrrarrr
t-hr.\11.rh
n r/-\\/An
:nd
: I
(rd. )
Pl-aintiffs
f rEI9rrLwayS,
also
''-s
viofations
of
Plaintiffs
fnc.,
South
:s
maintain
q r aL lu
Lu
qL e fLt iL r r r L^Y
J
7p6,1- aj-j 6rrc
r-, ^--^^-r
L
^U - u ' i
^ f
E
that
Defendant
"as
an
s 40102(6) (A) . "
Defendants
rtL-r
UIld
r^-*
Lllctllt
LUt-lIILy
subsLantia I
Defendants
Moror
(.1 .
d
removed
UII
viofated
the
Safety
Defendants
Plainl
,'LYrrYuuv!
Iedera I
neoiioenr-e
statuLes
adjudjcaLe
roments
and
and
LLC is
by
for
Iederal
intefmOdal
drivers
operaLing
PfainLlffs
Finally,
carrier
case
n r v u r n u iJ<
gl nrrr r
contend
vicariously
of
virtue
of
from
t- h:r
liable
46
USC
Court
Act
Shipping
of
reason
r-lairs
that
wi--
claims
. .v - t np a u n r
L \m. lr i
-^r
1984 or
Federal
the
Regulations.
-e'ctrr'r't'
under
r:i
w h e t h er
Courr
its
(Doc.
resolution
because
Lhrs
'rr-
spec i t-lcal I y
of
Adminiscrar,ion
State
the
rho
Ja w .
federal
a n d . r e g ul a c i o n s ,
Plaintiffs'
SeVeraI
Of
-arrr'
this
tha
9 1 51 0 - 1 1 . )
iffs'
LLC,
5167. )
quesLions
Carrjer
.,np-F-iOn
tl 51. )
common
(rd.
(Id.
Chassisfink,
Pool
Chassis
C M A - C G M ( A M E R I C A')
ocean
str\reraf
regufations.
carrier
carriers,
motor
t
PrtLsI
nr
because Defendant Cjbbons qualifies
f ^-j- l^
providers,
equipment
haeed
Defendants Dlrect
amn t/"1\/ap h\/
r rfv . \ * vI
!
J
Defendant
n Y | er
u ve o l i . !tY snrfL
motor
that
Iiable
are
v
Consolidated
Atlantic
Jnc.
f hei r
Eederaf
the
tl 40.)
tnterpool-,
i ru l , n r
r r n .L la L r c n d e n t
waJ
Ilr(-,
t.hat
al-Lege
inf e'n-otef
is
iln
1
of
of
empowered to
federal.
question
irrri
crli
o1 :i
cl
nr
i ffc
r r avrqr u
a
r
^qsoc i atecl
ihF
e
Sh inni
a:
not
does
to
Remand,
to
rri
or
Ar-l-
jndependenL
to
Plaintiffs,
a
to
turn
substantiaf
this
trigger
^n.l
fed er af
operate
into
cfaim
sufficient
federaf
M^l-^r
According
sources
negligence
state-faw
basic
Motion
his
create
4-5.)
aL
federal
these
to
1
In
A^i
nct
noL
do
(Doc.
action.
reference
his
ir h ra r
r e
reorllations
of
causes
S 1 3 3 1.
see 28 u's.c'
i an
Court's
(Id. )
jurisdiction.
AIiIAJ,YSI S
COLLATERALESTOPPEL
In
in
of
Support
DlAin-iFfe
arorre that
that
six
c.rrrrt assioned
dr^nfe.i
those
assigned
was
of
to
I he
nl ai nt-if f ' s
court.
case
to
Lhat
col-LaEeral
^,jt
-^m6
32 at
state
h
fi U
: ron v i
2-3. )
.lf
esLoppei
j-he
Theref ore,
Wood.
to
( C v 4 L 6 - 2 16 ,
appl ies
rFlAhed
.ases.
P14inrifts
filing,
Lo
Judge
-.linn
"respectfuJ
one
Wood
remanded that
PLaintj-ffs
precfude
innl
whife
Court,
remand and
28.)
and a.Lso
The C1erk of
Uftimatel-y'
Doc.
one of
ls
same time,
this
ruling
Those cases
same time.
the
cases to
motion
case
That
around the
Judge
that
In
and defendants'
around
five
2-3')
at
court
court
federal
removed to
case
state
in
filed
(Id.
32.)
bound by a previous
CourL is
same facts
the
invofves
were af1
this
case.
refated
remanding a
(Doc.
Remand'
to
Motion
Memorandum
a Supplemental
filed
Plaintiffs
case,
thj-s
any
-Lic
Iy
argue
differenL
nnc
urgefsl
f1OC.
Lhar
the
(Id.
an order
enter
Court
3. )
at
being
After
responded
Defendants
in
Judge Wood's order'"
with
consistent
file
to
directed
response/
request '
Pfaintiffs'
to
opposition
a
(Doc. 56. )
After
estoppel
coflateraf
that
consideration
careful
is
the
'
easily
Court
in
inappropriate
The
case'
this
that
Court of Appeafs recognizes
ELeventh Circuit
concfudes
operate
and claim preclusion
tbloth issue preclusion
parties
First,
continuum.
two-lawsuit
a
across
judgment on the
a final
to
a dispute
litigate
between
separate suit
Second, in a later,
merits.
evldence of
one party brings to court
the parties,
judgment and contends that issue or cfaim
an earlier
shoufd appfy to prevent her opponent from
preclusion
decided issue or cause of
a previously
litigating
actlon.
R.J.
Graham v.
C: r.
2OI1).
Revnolds Tobacco Co.,
Judge Wood's cdse was not
/ -/ - \ .I a m n / - \ - n e n r r I r z f i L e d c a s e .
:
s
L v r r L L I T I J V ! e ! t
before
this
parties".
Id.
to
operate
is
Court
bar
not
the
Court
prior
separate
co.I.Lateraf
from
at the time
Pfaintiffs
filed
this
a
the
ca se pending
suit
between the
estoppel
the
considering
Lo Remandbecause no prior
Motion
but
litigation,
othe-r words,
later,
Accordingly,
Plainc.if f s'
II.
"a
In
(1ith
857 F.3d 1169, I214
does
merits
decision
not
of
existed
case'
M O T ] O NT O R E M A N D
A defendant
burden
of
Adventu re
w h o remove s
proving
to
AC
ti-'
-e
Bf coomb
of
cour L bears
federaf
'cdtr ri l
qq.
Lhe
- irr r i s d i . j - i o n .
tr 1.1
-"qn
-294
(11-rh cir.
2008)
F.3d
912
9 6 1,
reservations
court.
(citing
Id.
has
a
a Car,
219
court
Rent
has
district
jurisdiction,
federal
state
1505 (11th
85 F.3d 1502'
Sheppard,
that
case to
remand:ng the
of
laws/
The
S 1331.
action
that
is
Sons Metaf
faw
federal
jurisdiction.
^^+^r^r.l
^r.-^^
federaf
547 U.S.
invoke
A complaint
federal-
necessarily
to
cfaim
j urisdiction
.
that
if
the
of
6'l'lt
Constr.
Laborers
(1983))
WhiIe
Vacation
noL
an
(quoting
Trust
S. Cal.,
granr
of
may still
compfaint
refief
to
question
v.
463 U.S.
- . 1. ,
I ur
308,
origrnal
t ^l.i
r-ufL
of
McVeigh,
Tax Bd. of
Franchise
for
auLomatic
Inc.
Assurance,
Empire Heafthchoice
690 (2006)
a substantiaf
&
be created
claim
right
of
Grable
545 U.S'
weff-pLeaded
plaintiff's
depends on resofution
law,"
"a
arising
cause
court' s
a state-faw
affeging
2B
Dow Pharm.
need not
district
the
a
see also
& Mfg.,
Darue Eng'g
v.
case
a
See Merrell
814 (1985);
804,
States."
pleads
faw'
However, a plaintiff's
(2AA5l .
in,,roke
Inc,
Prods.,
of
under
arising
United
plaintlff
a
by federat
Thompson, 478 U.S.
v.
the
e x a m pI e
obvious
courts
dlstrict
acLions
of
treaties
where
created
civif
"aLI
or
nost
is
law
federaf
over
federaf
to
confer{ed
rln
Constitution,
under
by
If
of
in favor
Diaz v.
i,,-icdr^r
U.S. C.
3L2
2002) ) .
Cir.
Enter:.
\t
1 , 9 9 6 )) .
nrr^,n:r
Inc.
T a^-.rd
as to the existence
Congress
the
(1lth
i -^
must be resolved
doubl
cir.
/^,r^+
\\-19vL1rrY
Caf.
v.
Lt 21-28
^r.i
Lf
^^
er',
d
claim
may fafl
district
courts
state-1aw
federal
:rn.rfanl
fFderal
The
-lef crnr
relief.
"ri nn
arcl
d'sn
rr] lrrdi .A I ird
In
a
tt-S-
Iaw
at
lssue
statute
contested
substantial
in
has
cases
545
Crable'
Second' a
1295.
approved
in
responsibi l ities"
U. S.
Adventure
3I4;
at
that
has noted
meet
wilf
that
.Iooked
In
was
the
to
thls
case. "
the
important
of
the
test
resolution
interpret-ation
"only
Id.
legal
Also,
where
a
"its
the
of
the
inrerpretarion
whether
or
federaf
of
1aw,
federal
an essentia.L element of
the
fact,
requires
question
disputed
woufd reso]ve
and
law.
The Supreme Court
of
Grable
in
54 5
whether a claim
and
Id.
claim.
-
a
701.
determining
Suprerne Court
j udi cial
Gralr'e
requires
congressional ly
"any
1295.
at
catesorv
substantial
federal
for
reso-Lution of
the
552 F' 3d at
state
and
552 F.3d
\A1
test
jurisdicL-ion.
federal
federal
upset
cli enr r^
r he
nf
outdoors,
musL not
slin
!"nnire.
rtar-l r'rrrFsl ion
Adventure
federal
of
Outdoors,
is
Lhat
claim
musL requj re
claim
state-Law
courL
ba lance
plarnciIf
a
an
two-part
a
crafted
1aw tr-lggers
a federaf
of
314;
discricL
wheLher
staLe-Iaw
wl^el heI
the
at
has
Cour:t
Supreme
srrheronr-rs 'r
rhe
rr
iq
n-orzisio-
se-sihlv
addicion,
t-nrr-t
Id.
a s s e r 1 - -n g
o'rhe
court
Thc
notice,
because resoluL ion
l -L , ^ - n r
district
inn-
foderal
l-ho
wi.h
courL,
in-p.p-p12-ion
.r:Frinn
the
that
sarr/Fd
he
L
5
an
with
received
l,o
-ha
filed
insurer
medical
i re rrer
suit
' L
yrLs,
in
jurisdiction
of
cause
alararminrtinn
irr
r - r L c6 v n . a t : r
-yr
nt
inn
n rloef ri rnLf
v
nf
iff's
I r!
lhc
trtrHRA
In
whi r:h
that
Court
observed
setLfement
reliaf
l-he
of
breach
that
because
an
on
r]enenc]ed
reor:rad
of
ann''cal'on
that
resolution
the
of
700,
n-esenrecj
Yt
resolut ion
of
-j.n
.
the
sd icri
baLance
on
in
ef f ect
was
F , m n ir -
envis i oned
by
E m p ir e
question
rederal
Court
the
in
on
in
rr'\qa-
Congress
10
l-FF
by
aL
E m p ir e
that
The
exist.
noted
would be
pure
100.
moving
that
"factof
Therefore,
woufd
not
exercising
deLicate
a
by
issue
simi.Lar: cases ,
other
concerned
.1ar,
r-,S.
and
concerned
Court
chan the
\1?
:t:E:L'".
"--.
seme r-onclrrsorv
addition,
trrni ra
Gr.h'a
test
noL an action
the
rar-her
bound and sj Lual ion-specj fic. "
Empire
Af so,
quesljon
Lhe federal
not
parLies'
agreement beLween private
at
Grable
did
in
controversy
Id,
the
applied
jurisdiction
question
federal
r . ' - r / a r n r h a n i -. . r e n . \ / ,
jrrri
maLter
asserted
proper
fo
Supreme Court
the
Emplre,
found
t .h c
for
The
commonLaw,
federal
la, , ,
t:w
subjecL
plaintiff
riohf
r
for
plan.
the
was
was
The
reimbursement
of
action
The
cfaim.
ld.
Lerms.
Iacked
court
irrricninr-inn
federal
^
the
state-law
contract-a
terms
Lhe federal
because
olan's
seeking
the
under
rlcfon'lanl- ..-orred rhac
the
court
federal
provided
care
rrnder
have
Id.
In
federaf
f ederal-srare
persona.L
ini ury
-1-inF
(- rdf||rD,
+ ry, P r ^ -a1f 1 y ,
L ^ru
f ,
Whife
-o
iL.- v
Fi-f
.-s
-_^r
Ar
n.-
indicate
case
on
sT-a- rtF
ro.rrrlalin^
caser
or
but
whether
only
Plainl-iffs'
ie
neol ioonce
left
to
disnnqjt:rre
in
contested
I
Grable,
multitude
was
>n^
this
lhi
s
.:qF
.r
based
on
PlrinriFFr'
state
facts
t-h...r+i,-<
Iaws.
be
As
<
this
assessj ng
of
Lawf a task
f ha
ci
cr:h
n n , r I . ar
l a
uhara
factuaL
nc'n1
i niarnral-:1
would
i..ns
be
man\,
In
^l. harq
to
make
r:equired
-^-,,1f
11
state
or
Court'
unique
.if
in
. is s u e
315
.a^,,1.t-
would
s i m p Je
resolution
in
legal
, . - ^ n f r . r l l.i n-n . , r
-
Court
A
issue
from
n-esented
rhis
that
far
is
only
"the
-!-r',1-a<
in
of
law
DLOLL4LLJ
determinations
av:mnla
fedcr:I
oF
unlikely
is
g-IgVOTIL
diqnncitirrc
This
LO
question
Loward
of
a
federaf
Ultimate
issues
the case.'/ 545 U,S. at
it
ALso.
claims.
courts,
issue
federaf
based
step
f aI
does not
violated
.li snosiLive
subst.antiaf
state
iss're
'ha
rL - - F L
' a uLr
)
590.
at
Defendants
nnf
i I
a substanLial
U. S.
ana]yLical
one
cla.ims involves
best
the
of
541
oI
tha\/
^-a
relief
ta
and
Grabfe
nl
,]q
right
on r6so.Lution
E m p jr e ,
I aw."
^.- 'rl
^-/1rq
Plaintiffs'
that
i ntFrnretat:i
these
federal-
to
LJ.
between
qlnrarra
J-La
hv
yn-LD
di'af
dependLl
federal
somewhere in
lies
nrr1- I i-orl
E- 'Lr.rP' | !iE .p
J
"necessari.ly
of
case
this
i l^'-
alncor
this
(-Ut-lr
Ls
5 Ld
Id.
courts,
Errn'
1n
l
^
r i ! "rr Yiu /! -eru i 6 / . i
to
i nanaa
drry
this
ci
nn
nf
either
Tlr l i lza
seve ra l-
case.
a-lso rely
daci
i nn
For
on
l^rrr
a
1-ho
CourL wjLh respect
U l l i m a l e lLvr t
l
ar\/
Dlav
c
s incl
tho
- ^ rnr t- - v J L ,/ 1 \ r a r e \- /
r
!
ev
in
r^tr116
nf
r \ r a! c F- nuf- J
J! '
interest
in
interest
The
of
nonl
ie
rrnl
or
Ufion
IeSOI
ikcl
rr
OF
l-'^
l-n
facuual 1y sensiuive
the
h.a ead
nn
:
action
r . r i l -l - ?
ass
to
fedefal
h^r!'^^n
at
.hi.s
Arr:in
wLerF
I he
agency
(IRS)
Grable,
in
ronlincnr-o
lha^-:as
federal
a
of
-ho
some
interest
i Ls
a wv ! lrrrrrq i r r o l r rv l f l
u^ a
(-.\')i^FrnS
nf
have
Government's
the
rhat
i c
rr: r i or rz
contrast
the
case,
r l-i J rnrrqr -r L
a
u c
-\/
r-l^'cf
an.l
does
Government
this
of
j-ha
stark
ir-ri r irrr
cli snrrl.g
and
its
Aclrrenl-r,-e O'rrdonrs-
StatuLe.',
552
1296.
hecauqF
case
anr]
a-a
irrrl:r-ia
Corrrl-
federal
i ^anna
rha
and
nl
rinc
h:q
state
i n.,nLi
remove
to
nn:l
"r-nnrrraqqi
hcon
evnl
i r:i t
fano
of
case
.annr.\\z^.'l
il-.ies."
i n
che
this
I rz
-Fsno-sihil
r:
I2
I
l:r-r.
Grable
to
test
federal
balance
of
545
:d,,lrocci
resDonsibllities
iudiciaf
nn
prong
second
the
Defendants
rrneoi
s
Srrnrcme
fails
also
a l I owi no
urnrrl d
'ede-:'
S
i r
qr on'f '.:arr 'v
is
rr- i a<
on
This
/-/:rrrt
hpfnra
Federal
this
in
F.3d at
the
outcome
narfiFs
"centered
.^'nna.
the
In
n:
COUTL,
cases because of
other
here
stands
l\.,
t/r
whife
F.inally,
nrrVafe
-h:c
may
r-1.^ -^^lt^6h^^
cr.ni^r-^
de
rI
and regulations
i nnrri r
-..=---v.
r -h a
crable.
ir
n a - 1L-
Iru!
TLorafnra
o1da"r1-
DFf
conrrolljng
le
lltl
lJrut,
sraLutes
Lhe federal
ro
na
the
ral:i
bafance
i n/'r
i-.\
.^mnl^inl-
t rA ll
r r
.'iolaf
a
alleoi"rn
i^n
of
federal
a
statute
as an efementl of a state cause of action'
when Conoress has determined that there should be no
nrirr:f
a
farlar.el
cause
I / ! l v q 9 v I
not
does
/^.nslrr'rFi^n
action
of
a
state
claim
violation,
the
-raat:es
.r
laws-
for
under:
"arising
oJ
Lhe
the
United
States, "
Merretl,
478 U.S.
DelendanLs
AIIowing
their
the
balance
l .-u1 u . \ . . . r o ^ U-a . y . - \ r . f
,
o.
eL
u' L i gJ- r
in
a
by
articulated
-^n-Frr
ihar
woufd
upset
the
delicate
rersnna
federal
faw
woufd
Lhat
disturhr
allowing
by
a
- . r w L ll dalil m- s LUo b ,et : bLrUo u- -q h r
,. /
u
u: c - rr
L
sLcrLc--Lctw
See Empire,
ti nrr
nerm'I
straightlorward
Supreme Court
L-Ly
--ctlr!LlUlId
forum.
federa-l
S 1 3 3 1 77 .
courL based on a possibiliLy
Louch upon
migiht
resofution
2B U.S.C.
Pla inti ffs'
remove
to
co federal
negl igence claims
(quoting
8L7 (L986)
804,
I
ini'rrrz
?00
al
541 U.S.
claims
be
to
bafance
federal-state
(expressing
removed
by
envisioned
Congress) .
all
For
reservations
Because
eJ - -oa _ .- . \ _
s c rl
that
J r r r r Ln . r
v
federa'
Mot.ion to
reasons,
power to
have
Ju'
failed
Remand and return
entitled
r no
had
l-o
an
r6move
"objectively
this
case.
l3
their
a.1rt--
s
this
reasonable
rr
burden
rrl ql-
r-enk
fees
Y!
State
concfudes
because
basis"
)in
of
/.rrant
the
Court
attorneys'
Marcin
claims.
case to
However,. the
to
serious
has
Plaintiffs'
meet
-hi
not
are
to
r5\]
Georgia.
Plaintiffs
Court
this
adjudicate
Chathan County,
Defendants
ar-arlnt
its
about
rchi
of
these
Defendants
Plaintiffs'
Court
of
for
a,anitaf
546 U.S.
Corp.,
mot.ion is
Plaintiffs'
L4r
L32,
200s)
F^ra
Thara
th^j-
n.\rLion
of
deni ed .
CONCI,USION
After
to
State
carefr.rl
R E I { A N D E Dt o
Plainfiffsr
this
(Doc.
the
reorasf
case is
4!;
of Court
(Doc.
Court
is
1)
is
StaLe
43;
for
Doc.
D I R E C T E Dt o
GRANTEDIN
of
Court
efto-nevs'
remanded to
Doc.
Pfaintiffs'
consideration'
the
49)
close
so oRDEREDrlis Z?#day
l
are
this
PART and this
Chatham
fees
State
Motion
Court,
iS
County,
DENIED.
to
Remand
case
Ceorgi a.
Because
aJ-I pending motions
DISMISSEDAs MoOT. The Clerk
case.
o f S e p t e m l c e r2 0 1 7 .
WILL]AM T. MOORE,
U N I T E D S T A T E SD I S T R I C T C O U R T
DISTRICT OF' GEORGIA
SOUTHBRN
1A
is
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?