From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Management v. Boston Road Mobile Home Park Tenants Assn

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Sep 10, 2010
C.A. NO. 10-cv-30082-MAP (D. Mass. Sep. 10, 2010)

Summary

discussing split of authority on whether remand motion is dispositive or non-dispositive; proceeding via report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Khramova v. Van Ness

Opinion

C.A. NO. 10-cv-30082-MAP.

September 10, 2010


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS (Dkt. Nos. 2 14)


Following removal, Plaintiffs moved to remand this case to state court and requested attorneys' fees and costs (Dkt. No. 2). This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman for a report and recommendation.

On July 8, 2010, Judge Neiman issued his Report and Recommendation, to the effect that Plaintiffs' motion should be allowed, but that the request for fees should be denied (Dkt. No. 14). The conclusion of the Report and Recommendation admonished the parties at n. 2 that any objections to the Report and Recommendation needed to be filed within fourteen days. No objection was filed by any party.

Based upon the merits of the Report and Recommendation, and in light of the absence of any objection, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS Judge Neiman's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14). Based upon this, the court hereby ALLOWS Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand but DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs (Dkt. No. 2).

The clerk will remand this case to state court. This federal action may now be closed.

It is So Ordered.


Summaries of

Management v. Boston Road Mobile Home Park Tenants Assn

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
Sep 10, 2010
C.A. NO. 10-cv-30082-MAP (D. Mass. Sep. 10, 2010)

discussing split of authority on whether remand motion is dispositive or non-dispositive; proceeding via report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Khramova v. Van Ness

discussing split of authority on whether remand motion is dispositive or non-dispositive; proceeding via report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Khramova v. Van Ness

declining to apply revival exception where plaintiff added new claims under civil rights statutes that might create exposure to greater damages because underlying allegations still revolved around discrimination

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Slatery v. Tenn. Valley Auth.

declining to apply revival exception where plaintiff added new claims under civil rights statutes that might create exposure to greater damages because underlying allegations still revolved around discrimination

Summary of this case from Tennessee ex rel. Slatery v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
Case details for

Management v. Boston Road Mobile Home Park Tenants Assn

Case Details

Full title:VALLEY MANAGEMENT, INC., and ROSAIDA RIVERA, Plaintiffs v. BOSTON ROAD…

Court:United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

Date published: Sep 10, 2010

Citations

C.A. NO. 10-cv-30082-MAP (D. Mass. Sep. 10, 2010)

Citing Cases

Tucker v. Equifirst Corp.

28 U.S.C. § 1446(c).E.g., Valley Management, Inc. v. Boston Road Mobile Home Park Tenants Association, 736…

Tennessee ex rel. Slatery v. Tenn. Valley Auth.

ing addition of claims against sheriff's office after four years did not "fundamentally alter" the nature of…