Woodside Credit, LLC v. Placencia et al
ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera adopting 14 Report and Recommendations, granting 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (baw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
WOODSIDE CREDIT, LCC,
Civ. No. 16-1274 JCH/KK
THOMAS PLACENCIA a/k/a TOMAS
DAVID PLACENCIA, and JOHN B.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION and OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“Motion to Remand”), filed November 29, 2016. (Doc. 8.) In
her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”), filed December 19, 2016,
United States Magistrate Judge Kirtan Khalsa proposed to find that (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand was timely; (2) Defendant’s Notice of Removal was untimely; (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint
did not present a federal question; and (4) Defendant should be sanctioned based on his
objectively unreasonable and untimely removal. (Doc. 14.) Judge Khalsa recommended that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand be granted, and that Plaintiff be required to submit an Affidavit of
its just costs and actual expenses, including attorney fees, as a result of the removal. (Id.)
Defendants1 filed Unified Objection[s] to Magistrate’s Proposed Order (“Objections”) on
January 9, 2017 (Doc. 16), and Defendants’ Objections are now before the Court.
Defendant John Gallegos joined Defendant Placencia in the Objections.
District courts may refer dispositive motions to a magistrate judge for a recommended
disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). “Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the
[magistrate judge’s] recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). When resolving objections to a magistrate judge’s proposal, “[t]he district judge
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be
both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for
appellate review.” United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.
Further, “[i]ssues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation are deemed waived.” Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996);
see also United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) (“In this circuit,
theories raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge’s report are deemed
The Court has considered the Motion to Remand, Defendant Placencia’s Response in
Opposition, the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD, and Defendants’ Objections in light of the foregoing
standards, and has conducted a de novo review. Based on this review, the Court finds that
Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD are unfounded. In their Objections, the
Defendants assert their pro se status (Doc. 16 at 1-2), list their defenses to Plaintiff’s claims (Id.
at 3-4), and reargue the timeliness of their Notice of Removal (Id. at 4-5). Defendants raise, for
the first time, their objections to the award of any costs based on a wholly vague and conclusory
allegation that “Plaintiff’s actions are scandalous and vexatious.” (Id. at 4.)
In short, following its de novo review, the Court finds no fault with the Magistrate
Judge’s PFRD, and discerns nothing that might usefully be added to it. Thus, rather than repeat
what the Magistrate Judge has already written, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s PFRD and OVERRULES Defendants’ Objections.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
(Doc. 8) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court will mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the
Thirteenth Judicial District Court, County of Valencia, State of New Mexico.
Plaintiff shall submit an Affidavit of its costs and actual expenses, including
attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal within ten days of the entry of this Order.
Defendants shall have ten days thereafter to respond to Plaintiff’s Affidavit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDITH C. HERRERA
United States District Judge
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?