Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wolf et al
Filing
19
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15 ) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 8/24/2016. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee, on
behalf of the registered holders of
GSAMP Trust 2005-HE-1,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2005-HE1
3815 South West Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115-4412
Case No. 1:15-cv-814
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONNA L. WOLF, et al.,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 15)
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on July 27, 2016,
submitted a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”). (Doc. 15). Defendants Donna
Wolf and James Wolf, Jr. (“Wolf Defendants”) objected to the R&R on August 12, 2016.
(Doc. 16). The Wolf Defendants also filed a Motion to Strike the R&R from the record
on August 12, 2016. (Doc. 17).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo
all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such R&R should be and is hereby ADOPTED.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of
remand (Doc. 13) be denied. For the reasons stated in the R&R and in the previous R&R
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted (Doc. 8), the Court once
again agrees that it does not have jurisdiction and must remand this case. For these same
reasons, the Wolf Defendants’ objections (Doc. 16) are OVERRULED, and their motion
to strike the R&R (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
The Magistrate Judge also recommends, as she did in her previous R&R (Doc. 8),
that Plaintiff’s request for the imposition of reasonable costs and fees be granted. As
noted in the original R&R, “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just
costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the
removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (emphasis added). An award of costs and attorney fees is
discretionary. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005).
This Court opted not to award costs and fees in its order granting in part the first
R&R (Doc. 11), citing the need to afford leniency to the filings of pro se litigants in
determining whether attorney’s fees were warranted. See Williams v. City of Southfield,
99 Fed. App’x 44, 46 (6th Cir. 2004). However, Defendants have now once again raised
the same meritless claims concerning subject matter jurisdiction that were already
2
rejected by this Court. (See Doc. 11). At this point, this Court determines that the Wolf
Defendants lacked an objectively reasonable basis for continuing to argue the issue of
subject matter jurisdiction and that their filing of the motion for reconsideration of
remand to state court (Doc. 13) merits the imposition of sanctions.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:
1.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of remand (Doc. 13) is DENIED;
2.
Plaintiff’s request for the imposition of reasonable costs and fees (Doc. 14)
is GRANTED;
3.
Defendants’ motion to strike magistrate’s report and recommendation on
reconsideration (Doc. 17) is DENIED;
4.
The Wolf Defendants are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co., reasonable costs and fees in the amount of $1,200.00.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/24/16
s/ Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
3
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?