Green et al v. The 3M Company, et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; For the foregoing reasons, Judge Shields' R&R (Docket Entry 34) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs' motion to remand (Docket Entry 21) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after the parties conduct limited discovery. To that end, the parties are directed to engage in discovery targeted towards identification of the citizenship of the members of the Plaintiff classes, and to complete that discovery within ninety (90) days of the date of this Order. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/12/2018. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
ISAAC GREEN and ARNEAL GREEN;
ELIZABETH LIGGON and JEROME LIGGON;
CATHY GREEN and AL GREEN; JASON
ROBINSON; YVONNE GREEN and AARON
GREEN; MARK GREEN; STACY GREEN and
ANTHONY GREEN; THEODORA LIGGON and
GREGORY LIGGON; and MICHELLE BLOXON,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
17-CV-2566(JS)(AYS)

-againstTHE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Co., TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS L.P., successor-in-interest
to The Ansul Company, ANGUS FIRE,
NATIONAL FOAM, BUCKEYE FIRE
PROTECTION CO., CHEMGUARD, and
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------X
SEYBERT, District Judge:

Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs’ May 18,
2017 motion to remand this action to state court (Pl.s’ Mot.,
Docket Entry 21); and (2) Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields’ Report
and

Recommendation

(“R&R”)

recommending

that

the

Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice to renewal.
Entry 34, at 1-2.)

Court

deny

(R&R, Docket

For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS

Judge Shields’ R&R in its entirety.
BACKGROUND
This action was commenced on March 27, 2017 in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, and was

removed to this Court on April 28, 2017 pursuant to the class
action

provisions

of

the

diversity

of

citizenship

statute,

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (the “Class Action Fairness Act” or “CAFA”).
(Notice of Removal, Docket Entry 1, at 1.)

On May 18, 2017,

Plaintiffs, who commenced this matter as a class action on behalf
of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a motion to
remand this action to state court.

(Pl.s’ Mot. at 1; R&R at 2.)

On October 13, 2017, this Court referred Plaintiffs’ motion to
Judge Shields for a report and recommendation on whether it should
be granted.

(Referral Order, Docket Entry 30.)
THE R&R

Judge Shields issued her R&R on November 20, 2017,
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion to remand
without prejudice to renewal after the completion of certain
discovery.

(R&R at 1-2.)

Judge Shields analyzed the relevant

provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, under which this
matter was removed and also under which Plaintiffs move for remand.
(R&R at 6-7.)

She noted that “a decision as to whether mandatory

or discretionary CAFA remand is proper depends, at least in part,
on the issue of the citizenship of all members of the plaintiff
class.”

(R&R at 9.)

Judge Shields found that Plaintiffs have not

shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requisite
number of members of the Plaintiff classes are citizens of the
State of New York such that remand is warranted under CAFA.
2

(R&R

at 9-11.)

Therefore, Judge Shields recommended that “the motion

[to remand] be denied without prejudice to renewal after the
parties

engage

in

an

initial

tier

of

discovery

targeted

to

identification of the citizenship of the members of the Plaintiff
classes” and “that such discovery begin promptly after entry of
the District Court’s final decision as to [the R&R], and be
complete within 90 days thereafter.”

(R&R at 12.)

DISCUSSION
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
reject,

or

modify,

recommendations

in

made

by

whole
the

or

in

part,

magistrate

the

judge.”

findings
28

and

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). If no timely objections have been made, the “court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record.”

Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10

(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Objections were due within fourteen (14) days of service
of the R&R.

The time for filing objections has expired, and no

party has objected.

Accordingly, all objections are hereby deemed

to have been waived.
Upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds
Judge Shields’ R&R to be comprehensive, well-reasoned, and free of
clear error, and it ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Shields’ R&R (Docket
Entry 34) is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand
(Docket Entry 21) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after the
parties conduct limited discovery.

To that end, the parties are

directed to engage in discovery targeted towards identification of
the citizenship of the members of the Plaintiff classes, and to
complete that discovery within ninety (90) days of the date of
this Order.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

January
12 , 2018
Central Islip, New York

4