Severe Records et al v. Jones et al

Filing 25

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's "Motion to Nonsuit Contingent on Denial on the Fee Request in the Remanded Rich Case Before This Court" (Docket No. 23) should be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 8/1/11. (af)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

CHRIS SEVIER,
Plaintiff,

vs.

NANCY JONES, CYNDI McKENZIE,
KRISANN HODGES, BILL RAMSEY,
ANTON JACKSON, ROSEMARY
SEXTON, MARC OSWALD,
ANTONETTE WELCH, HELEN
ROGERS, TN BOARD OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-00435
JUDGE CAMPBELL/KNOWLES
JURY DEMAND

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court upon a document filed by Plaintiff headed “Motion to
Nonsuit Contingent on Denial on the Fee Request in the Remanded Rich Case Before This
Court.” Docket No. 23. Plaintiff has filed a supporting Memorandum (Docket No. 24), which is
25 pages in length, but it does not cite a single case or statute. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro
se, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Tennessee.
The Court does not expect any of the Defendants to file a Response to the Motion
because, insofar as the record reflects, no Summonses have ever been issued or served.
The instant Motion appears to be an “offer” by Plaintiff to “nonsuit” the instant case on
the condition that the Court deny a fee request in another case involving Plaintiff that was

previously pending in this Court. See Rich v. Sevier Records and Chris Sevier, No. 3:11-00362,
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
In Rich, Mr. Sevier and Severe Records, LLC, were sued by John Rich in the Circuit
Court for Davidson County. Defendants Chris Sevier and Severe Records removed that action to
this Court, but they did not show any basis for the Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court entered an Order in Rich requiring Defendants to establish the Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction (Docket No. 18), and Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand that case to State Court
(Docket No. 19). Plaintiff Rich’s Motion also sought an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation in Rich, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand be granted and that Plaintiff Rich be awarded his costs and fees
under § 1447(c). Docket No. 30. Judge Campbell approved the Report and Recommendation,
remanded the Rich case to State Court, and granted Plaintiff Rich’s request for costs and
attorneys’ fees. Docket No. 39. Judge Campbell’s Order also required Plaintiff’s counsel to file
an appropriate Affidavit and documentation establishing their costs and expenses, and the Order
referred that matter to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. Id.
Plaintiff Rich’s counsel filed Affidavits regarding the costs and fees (Nos. 42, 43), and
the undersigned submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff Rich be
awarded total costs and fees in the amount of $24,946.05. Mr. Sevier did not file objections to
that Report and Recommendation. Instead, approximately two weeks thereafter, he filed the
instant Motion.
As discussed above, the instant Motion simply makes an offer that Plaintiff Sevier will

2

nonsuit the instant action if the Court will deny the fee request in Rich. Plaintiff, however, offers
no authority for the proposition that the Court can or should countenance such an outrageous
proposal. The instant Motion appears to presume that the Court has some incentive for wanting
Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the instant action. That simply is not the case. Additionally, Mr.
Rich is not a party to the instant action, and it is unclear why Mr. Rich would be interested in
abandoning an award of costs and expenses in the amount of almost $25,000.00 in order to have
Plaintiff dismiss the instant case.
Moreover, six days after Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, Judge Campbell entered an
Order in Rich adopting and approving the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation that
Plaintiff Rich be awarded $24,946.05.1 Docket No. 45.
Finally, as discussed above, Plaintiff has cited absolutely no authority for the instant
Motion.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Nonsuit Contingent on Denial on the
Fee Request in the Remanded Rich Case Before This Court” (Docket No. 23) should be
DENIED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this

1

Perhaps not surprisingly, Judge Campbell’s Order does not mention the instant Motion.
3

Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985),
reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

E. Clifton Knowles
United States Magistrate Judge

4