From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seigfried v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 17, 2009
Civil Action No. 09-125 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 09-125.

April 17, 2009


ORDER


AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2009, after defendant General Electric Corporation removed this action, which the plaintiffs, William Seigfried and his wife Marlene Seigfried, had filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania, and after a motion to remand was submitted by the plaintiffs, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties thirteen days after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, upon consideration of the objections filed by the plaintiffs, and upon independent review of the motion and the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 183), which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to remand (Docket No. 67) is denied.


Summaries of

Seigfried v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 17, 2009
Civil Action No. 09-125 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2009)
Case details for

Seigfried v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM SEIGFRIED and MARLENE SEIGFRIED, his wife, Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 17, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 09-125 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2009)

Citing Cases

Rehman v. Basic Moving

The Court agrees with Rehman, that based on her deposition testimony, Basic should have been aware of the…

Leite v. Crane Co.

• Kotecki v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc., 2009 WL 2253169 (D. Conn. July 28, 2009) (same);• Seigfried v. Allegheny…