THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 35 Report and Recommendations, 15 Motion to Remand to SUPERIOR COURT OF NJ, LAW DIVISION, ESSEX COUNTY, filed by PRU ALPHA FIXED UNCOME OPPORTUNITY MASTER FUND I, L.P., COMMERCE STREET INVESTMENT, LLC, THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT AND ANNUITY COMPANY, PRUDENTIAL TRUST COMPANY ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 5/6/13. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civ. No. 2:12-cv-05854 (WJM)

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
BARCLAYS BANK PLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs The Prudential Insurance Company of America and four of its affiliates
filed this action in New Jersey Superior Court, asserting fraud and other state law claims
against several financial institutions arising out of the purchase of more than $200 million
in residential mortgage backed securities. Defendants removed the action to this Court,
arguing that there was federal jurisdiction because (1) the case was related to pending
bankruptcy proceedings, and (2) there was diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs moved to
remand. The motion to remand was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mark
Falk. On January 22, 2013, Judge Falk filed a detailed, 21-page Report and
Recommendation in which he found that this action is a “purely state law case between
non-bankrupt parties [that] has no business in federal court.” Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 35. The parties were notified that they had fourteen (14)
days to submit objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 72.1(c)(2). Defendants timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation,

1

making substantially the same arguments that Judge Falk rejected when evaluating the
motion to remand. Plaintiffs timely filed a response to Defendants’ objections.
This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo and agrees in all
respects with Judge Falk’s reasoning. For the reasons set forth in detail in the Report and
Recommendation, and for good cause appearing;
IT IS on this 6th day of May 2013, hereby,
ORDERED that Defendants’ objections to the Report and Recommendation are
overruled; and it is further
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark Falk
is adopted as the Opinion of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of New
Jersey.

/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
cc:

The Hon. Mark Falk, U.S.M.J.

2