From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jacobson v. Law Office of Michael Michael PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 25, 2021
Case No. 1:21-cv-02728-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-02728-FB-RML

06-25-2021

DANIEL JACOBSON, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL MICHAEL PLLC, MICHAEL MICHAEL, Defendants.

For the Plaintiff: BRUCE J. CHERIFF Cheriff & Fink, P.C. For the Defendants: MARK K. ANESH SARAH A. ADAM Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP


For the Plaintiff:

BRUCE J. CHERIFF

Cheriff & Fink, P.C.

For the Defendants:

MARK K. ANESH

SARAH A. ADAM

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FREDERIC BLOCK SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On May 18, 2021, Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann issued a sua sponte Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the pending action “be remanded” to “Supreme Court, Kings County.” See ECF No. 7 at 2. Magistrate Judge Mann noted that the forum defendant rule is controlling in this case because the defendants are citizens of New York. Id. at 1. The rule bars a defendant who is a resident of the state in which removal is sought from removing an action to federal court. See, e.g., Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 705 (2d Cir. 2019); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). A district court may order remand sua sponte within 30 days of filing of the notice of removal. Here, the notice of removal was filed on May 14, 2021, and Magistrate Judge Mann's sua sponte R&R was filed on May 18, 2021.

The R&R stated that failure to object within fourteen days of the date of the R&R precludes further review. No. objections were filed. If clear notice has been given of the consequences of failing to object and there are no objections, the Court may adopt the R&R without de novo review. See, e.g., Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d 93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court will excuse the failure to object and conduct de novo review if it appears that the magistrate judge may have committed plain error. See Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr. Facility, 219 F .3d 162, 174 (2d Cir. 2000). No. such error appears in Magistrate Judge Mann's decision. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and orders the action REMANDED to Supreme Court, Kings County.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jacobson v. Law Office of Michael Michael PLLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jun 25, 2021
Case No. 1:21-cv-02728-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2021)
Case details for

Jacobson v. Law Office of Michael Michael PLLC

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL JACOBSON, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL MICHAEL PLLC, MICHAEL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jun 25, 2021

Citations

Case No. 1:21-cv-02728-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 25, 2021)