Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-0519-P-L
December 19, 2000
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and dated October 16, 2000, is due to be adopted as the opinion of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (docs. 6-7) be denied. Defendants filed a timely Statement of Objection and Brief in support thereof (docs. 25-26).
Defendants' Objections reassert issues raised in the Motion. Specifically, defendants reassert that AmSouth Bank, Alan Woods, and Cedric Hatcher, defendants to the state Circuit Court action, are all Alabama residents and, contrary to the Magistrate Judge's findings, are indispensable parties to the action sub judice (doc. 25, ¶ numbered 1). This issue was considered and addressed by the Magistrate Judge (doc. 24, p. 3-7). The Magistrate Judge found that AmSouth, Hatcher, and Woods were neither necessary, nor indispensable parties to the instant action. This court finds no fault with the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned finding.
Defendants also reassert, contrary to the Magistrate Judge's finding, that the abstention doctrine is applicable (doc. 25, ¶ numbered 2). This objection is also repetitive. This court finds that the Magistrate Judge considered and addressed the issue appropriately (doc. 24, p. 7-11).
Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge failed to mention that claims and issues as to Alan Woods and Private Business, Inc., are the same (doc. 25, ¶ numbered 3). On the contrary, the Magistrate Judge, following consideration of the pleadings and after hearing oral arguments, found and noted: "[T]he claims against Private Business are an independent action from the claims asserted against AmSouth, Hatcher, and Woods[,]" (doc. 24, p. 6, ¶ 1), and "[s]ince the actions against each state court defendant are separate claims the undersigned fails to see any prejudice that can result to the absent parties." Id. at ¶ 2.
Further, defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge improperly concluded that Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Meade, 186 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 1999) was inapplicable because the omitted parties in Meade were plaintiffs and not defendants, and improperly relied on First Franklin Financial Corp. v. McCollum, 144 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 1998), and on MS Dealer Service v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 1999) (doc. 25, ¶¶ numbered 4-7). However, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's interpretation, analysis, and application of the referred to jurisprudence to be clear and correct.
Therefore, defendants' Objections are hereby OVERRULED. Accordingly, after due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and this de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this court, and defendants' Motion To Dismiss is hereby DENTED.