Davis v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 9 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Virginia Davis.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush on 1/25/2013. (pad, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case No. 4:12cv710
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Dkt. 9). In her motion, Plaintiff
argues that Defendant’s removal of this matter was untimely and thus the matter should be
remanded. As set forth below, the motion should be DENIED.
Plaintiff originally filed this case against United Healthcare Corporation in the 8th Judicial
District of Hopkins County, Texas on August 6, 2012. See Dkt. 4. Defendant removed the case to
this Court on November 9, 2012. See Dkt. 1.
A notice of removal “shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon
which such action or proceeding is based....” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). A court is required to strictly
construe the removal statute in favor of remand and against removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447; In re HotHed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007). Federal district courts are of limited jurisdiction and
may hear only those cases authorized by a federal statute, the Constitution, or U.S. treaty. Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed.2d 391 (1994);
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
Thus, the Court must determine when Defendant through service or otherwise received the
initial pleading upon which the case was removed – Plaintiff’s Original Petition for Summary
Judgment. See Dkt. 1-2. According to the state court citation, Defendant was mailed a copy of
Plaintiff’s Original Petition for Summary Judgment on October 5, 2012 via certified mail. See Dkt.
1-3. Defendant claims that it received the document on October 10, 2012, as evidenced by a
received stamp on the document. See Dkt. 1-3. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence that would
controvert this date of receipt, and the October 10, 2012 delivery date is confirmed in United States
Postal Service’s online records for the delivery date of the certified mail number listed on the
citation. Thirty days after October 10, 2012 was November 9, 2012. Defendant filed its notice on
that date, as is required by the statute. Therefore, the removal was timely, and the Court will not
remand the case based on Plaintiff’s allegations.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Dkt. 9) should be DENIED. Within fourteen (14) days after
service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file written objections to the
findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
in this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by
the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
findings accepted or adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th
SIGNED this 25th day of January, 2013.
DON D. BUSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?