Summary
noting that, even if "a New Mexico court, in the future, may decide that a sales representative like Dillard cannot be held strictly liable for a defective medical device," it would not be appropriate for the court to "engage in multi-part policy analysis"
Summary of this case from Schmidt v. Int'l Playthings LLCOpinion
CIV 08-0274 JCH/LAM.
January 9, 2009
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (hereinafter, "PF RD") ( Doc. 36), filed on November 25, 2008. Defendants DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (hereinafter, "DePuy") and Gina Dillard filed timely objections ( Doc. 37) to portions of the PF RD and the deadline for filing objections has passed. Plaintiff Anthony J. Spataro did not file any objections to the PF RD but filed a timely response ( Doc. 38) to DePuy's and Dillard's objections on December 12, 2008. Additionally, although not provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, Defendants DePuy and Dillard filed a reply in support of their objections ( Doc. 39) on December 23, 2008, and a notice of completion of briefing ( Doc. 40) on December 24, 2008. The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the PF RD to which DePuy and Dillard object and finds that the objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court has determined that it will overrule the objections; adopt the PF RD; and grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ( Doc. 5). The Court will enter a final order, contemporaneously with this order, remanding this case to the Second Judicial District Court of Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, a party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommended disposition by filing and serving written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the proposed findings and recommended disposition. A party may respond to another party's objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the objections. Id. When timely objections are filed, the district court must review de novo those portions of the proposed findings and recommended disposition to which objections are made. Id. In conducting its de novo review, the district court is not required to make specific findings but instead may simply indicate that it has undertaken the requisite review. Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760, 766-67 (10th Cir. 2000).Analysis and Conclusion
Defendants DePuy and Dillard object to that portion of the PF RD in which the Magistrate Judge analyzed the issue of whether Dillard was fraudulently joined in this action for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. DePuy and Dillard further object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that DePuy and Dillard failed to meet their burden of showing that Dillard was fraudulently joined. In their objections, DePuy and Dillard contend, as they did in their response ( Doc. 12) to Plaintiff's motion to remand ( Doc. 5), that Dillard was fraudulently joined as a defendant and, therefore, her citizenship should be disregarded for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction.
The Court has carefully reviewed the record of this case, the PF RD, the objections to the PF RD filed by DePuy and Dillard, Plaintiff's response to the objections, DePuy's and Dillard's reply in support of their objections and their notice of completion of briefing. Having done so, the Court finds that the objections are without merit and should be overruled. DePuy and Dillard raise the same arguments in their objections that they raised in the response to the motion to remand. Therefore, the Court will overrule the objections; adopt the PF RD; and grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ( Doc. 5). Additionally, the Court will enter a final order, contemporaneously with this order, remanding this case to the Second Judicial District Court of Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The objections asserted in Defendants' Partial Objection to Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ( Doc. 37) are OVERRULED;
2. The Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ( Doc. 36) are ADOPTED by the Court;
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand ( Doc. 5) is GRANTED; and
4. This case will be REMANDED to the Second Judicial District Court of Bernalillo County, New Mexico, pursuant to a final order entered contemporaneously with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.