Green et al v. The 3M Company, et al
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
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,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-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,
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
Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice to renewal.
Entry 34, at 1-2.)
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS
Judge Shields’ R&R in its entirety.
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
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
(Referral Order, Docket Entry 30.)
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
(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
(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.
Therefore, Judge Shields recommended that “the motion
[to remand] be denied without prejudice to renewal after the
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.)
In reviewing an R&R, a district court “may accept,
§ 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.
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
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT______
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
12 , 2018
Central Islip, New York
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?