PINTOS
v.
MARTINEZ
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion to remand.
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion, fi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Removal Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta D. Augustin- Birch’s Report and Recommendation (DE 23) (“Report”) on Plaintiff Flavia Pintos’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand (DE 9) (“Motion”).1 In the Report, Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion. (DE 23 at 1.) Specifically, Judge Augustin-Birch finds that Defendants have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. at 4.) Defendants filed Objections to the Report (DE 29) (“Objections”).2
Rola v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 3156672, at *7–*9 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2011) (recommending that the court deny plaintiff’s motion to remand even where plaintiff did not accept defendant’s $75,000 settlement offer because the court found that “the failure to accept the settlement proposal d[id] not create jurisdiction”), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 3111965 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2011); Revilla v. Racetrac, Inc., 2022 WL 4479942, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2022); cf. Allen v. Christenberry, 327 F. 3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[R]emoval statutes should be construed narrowly, with doubts resolved against removal.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report (DE 23) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 9) is GRANTED.
3. This action is REMANDED to Florida state court.
4. Any and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
that the rules do not provide for and “creates uncertainty” as to which judge has jurisdiction. See id. (“Plaintiff’s chosen path of filing both objections to the Report and Recommendations (to be ruled upon by the District Judge) and a motion for reconsideration (to be ruled upon by . . . a magistrate judge) creates uncertainty as to whether the [magistrate judge] has jurisdiction to rule on the . . . motion for reconsideration.”). Accordingly, and in light of the pending Report and Defendants’ timelyfiled Objections, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of October, 2023.