Avila et al v. Metropolitan Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas et al

Filing 18

ORDER: The court concludes that the 16 Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Granting 6 Motion to Remand to State Court, but denies Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees. The clerk of the court is directed to effect the remand in accordance with the usual procedure. Further, the court determines that any request by Defendants to sever and abate Plaintiffs' extra-contractual can be addressed by the court in the state court action. The court, therefore, denies without prejudice Defendants' Motion to Sever and Abate (Doc. 17 ). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/3/2017) (ndt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
FRANCISCO AVILA and MARTHA
AVILA,
Plaintiff,
v.
METROPOLITAN LLOYDS
INSURANCE, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3007-L

ORDER
On February 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that the court grant Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand (Doc. 6) but deny their request for
attorney’s fees. No objections to the Report were filed; however, on March 3, 2017, several
Defendants in this case filed a Motion to Sever and Abate (Doc. 17) Plaintiffs’ extra-contractual
causes of action.
After considering the motions, the record relevant to the motions, and Report, the court
concludes that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion to Remand (Doc.
6), denies Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees, and remands this action to County Court at Law
No. 2, Kaufman County, Texas, from which it was removed. The clerk of the court is directed to
effect the remand in accordance with the usual procedure. Further, the court determines that any
request by Defendants to sever and abate Plaintiffs’ extra-contractual can be addressed by the court

Order – Page 1

in the state court action. The court, therefore, denies without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to
Sever and Abate (Doc. 17).
It is so ordered this 3rd day of April, 2017.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2