Summary
holding that third-party defendant removal is not proper even if third-party plaintiff takes post-pleading actions depriving district court of subject matter jurisdiction out of "a desire to litigate exclusively in state court"
Summary of this case from Natasha Denona Trading Ltd. v. Capacity, LLCOpinion
Civil Action No. 12-4513 (ES)
02-11-2013
Re: Ramirez Pacheco v. Rosenberg, et al.
CHAMBERS OF
ESTHER SALAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
LETTER ORDER
Dear Counsel:
Pending before this Court is Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff Joseph Rosenberg's ("Defendant") motion to remand the instant matter to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County. (D.E. No. 3). The matter was removed to this Court by Third-Party Defendants, the City of Union City and Salvatore Ferlise (the "City Defendants"). On January 24, 2013, Magistrate Judge Steven Mannion issued a Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 8) recommending that this Court grant the Motion. Magistrate Judge Mannion advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file and serve any objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.1(c)(2). To date, Plaintiff and the City Defendants have not filed any objections.
The Court has considered Defendant's submission in support, as well as Judge Mannion's Report and Recommendation, and for the reasons stated therein,
IT IS on this 11th day of February 2013,
ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Mannion's January 24, 2013 Report and Recommendation in full, and thus grants Defendant's Motion to Remand; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this matter.
SO ORDERED.
________________________
Esther Salas , U.S.D.J