SXSW, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING Magistrate Judge's 47 Report and Recommendations. ORDER Granting SXSWs Unopposed 46 Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint. ORDER that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because complete diversity of citizenship existed between SXSW and Federal at the time this lawsuit was filed and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ORDER for the Clerk of the Court to supplement the appellate record with filings starting with 44 , including the amendedcomplaint and this Order. ORDER that this case shall be returned to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (klw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
SXSW, LLC,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

1:21-CV-900-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge
Susan Hightower concerning this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Fifth Circuit’s
instructions on remand, (Dkt. 43). (R. & R., Dkt. 47). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d)
of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Judge Hightower issued her report and recommendation on November 3, 2023. (Id.). After
the report and recommendation was issued, the parties both filed notices with the Court stating they
do not object to the report and recommendation. (Dkts. 48, 49). For clarity, Defendant Federal
Insurance Company (“Federal”) also stated that it has no objection to Plaintiff SXSW, LLC
(“SXSW”) filing its proposed amended complaint meant to correct the jurisdictional concern
identified by the Fifth Circuit. (Dkt. 49, at 1–2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served
with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the
district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’s report
and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no

1

timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Because the parties state they have no objections to the report and recommendation, the
Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear
error, the Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. 47), is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SXSW’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 46), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because complete diversity of citizenship existed between SXSW and
Federal at the time this lawsuit was filed and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall supplement the appellate
record with copies of all filings since the remand, starting with Dkt. 44, including the amended
complaint and this Order.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this case shall be returned to the Fifth Circuit for
further proceedings.
SIGNED on November 14, 2023.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2