Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ferranti v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

December 28, 2006

SHEILA M. FERRANTI, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTIE LYNN GREEN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DAIMLER CHRYSLER CORP., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones

Magistrate Judge Blewitt

ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before this Court is a Motion to Remand to State Court ("the Motion"), filed by Plaintiff Sheila M. Ferranti ("Plaintiff" or "Ferranti") on October 13, 2006. (Rec. Doc. 3). On November 13, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt issued a report recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied. (Rec. Doc. 6). For the reasons that follow, we will adopt Magistrate Judge Blewitt's report in its entirety.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 31, 2006, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Writ of Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County ("state court"). (Rec. Doc. 1-1 at 1, 6). On September 14, 2006, Defendant Daimler Chrysler Corporation ("Defendant" or "Daimler") removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and 1441(a).*fn1

(Red. Doc. 1-1 at 2).

On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to State Court. (Rec. Doc. 3). On November 13, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied as Defendant is not a Pennsylvania citizen and subject matter jurisdiction exists. (Rec. Doc. 6).

Objections to Magistrate Judge Blewitt's Report were due on November 28, 2006, and to this date none have been filed. This matter is ripe for disposition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When no objections are made to a magistrate's report, the district court is not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge's report before accepting it. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the Third Circuit, however, "the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge's report, the report becomes the judgment of the court. Id.

DISCUSSION

Our review of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge's determinations and although we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them, we will briefly reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation.

As the Magistrate Judge explains, "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between -- (1) Citizens of different States . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Moreover, actions begun in a state court "may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action in pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, such removal is limited to those cases in which "none ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.