Summary
granting motion to remand breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste claims that defendants argued required plaintiff to prove an FCA violation, finding that the case did not raise a pure issue of federal law but instead was "a garden variety shareholder derivative suit, which will depend heavily on its facts"
Summary of this case from Chandra v. ChandraOpinion
Civil No. 09-4167 (WJM).
March 24, 2010
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on January 7, 2010; and Judge Falk having recommended that Plaintiff's motion to remand be granted and request for fees be denied; and the Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo; and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Letter Opinion; and for good cause appearing,
IT IS on this 24th day of March 2010, hereby,
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark Falk is adopted as the Opinion of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED and Plaintiff's request for fees is DENIED.