Opinion
23-61169-CV-WILLIAMS
10-03-2023
FLAVIA PINTOS, Plaintiff, v. GUADALUPE FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.
OMNIBUS ORDER
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch's Report and Recommendation (DE 23) (“Report') on Plaintiff Flavia Pintos' (“Plaintiff') Motion to Remand (DE 9) (“Motion”).In the Report, Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff's Motion. (DE 23 at 1.) Specifically, Judge Augustin-Birch finds that Defendants have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 4.) Defendants filed Objections to the Report (DE 29) (“ Objections ”).
On June 22, 2023, the Court referred Plaintiff's Motion to Judge Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation. (DE 11.)
After Defendants filed their Objections but before the Court ruled on the Report, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Order Recommending Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (DE 36) (“Motion for Reconsideration”), asking Judge Augustin-Birch to reconsider her Report. (Id. at 3.) However, the applicable rules provide that the proper avenue for relief from a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is to timely file objections to the report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. “It is unclear whether [Defendants] may also simultaneously ask the [Magistrate Judge] to reconsider the Report and Recommendations.' Darby v. Carnival Corp., 2021 WL 5902866 at *1 (S D Fla Dec 13 2021) Such a practice creates an extra layer of review that the rules do not provide for and “creates uncertainty” as to which judge has jurisdiction. See id. (“Plaintiff's chosen path of filing both objections to the Report and Recommendations (to be ruled upon by the District Judge) and a motion for reconsideration (to be ruled upon by . . . a magistrate judge) creates uncertainty as to whether the [magistrate judge] has jurisdiction to rule on the . . . motion for reconsideration.”). Accordingly, and in light of the pending Report and Defendants' timely-filed Objections, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Defendants objected and a review of the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the Report, Objections, record, and applicable law, the Court agrees with Judge Augustin-Birch's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion be granted. See, e.g., Rola v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 3156672, at *7-*9 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2011) (recommending that the court deny plaintiff's motion to remand even where plaintiff did not accept defendant's $75,000 settlement offer because the court found that “the failure to accept the settlement proposal d[id] not create jurisdiction”), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 3111965 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2011); Revilla v. Racetrac, Inc., 2022 WL 4479942, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022); cf. Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[R]emoval statutes should be construed narrowly, with doubts resolved against removal.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report (DE 23) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion (DE 9) is GRANTED.
3. This action is REMANDED to Florida state court.
4. Any and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.