Steckmest v Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 2:2012cv00035 - Document 42 (D. Mont. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ; denying 8 Motion to Remand Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 9/17/2013. (ELL, )

Download PDF
Steckmest v Farmers Insurance Exchange Doc. 42 FILED SEP f 7 2013 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clef'!<. y.S. District Court Distnct Of Montana Missoula FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION MICHAEL STECKMEST, Plaintiff, vs. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and JOHN DOES 1 through 5, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 12-35-BU-DLC-RWA ORDER -----------------------) Plaintiff Michael Steckmest filed a motion to remand and request for fees and costs (doc. 8) which is pending in this matter. United States Magistrate Judge Richard W. Anderson entered Findings and Recommendation on August 9,2013, recommending denying the motion. The parties did not timely object to the Findings and Recommendation, and so have waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). This Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F 3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Dockets.Justia.com Judge Anderson found that because Steckmest's complaint failed to allege a sufficiently specific total amount in controversy, the applied standard is preponderance of the evidence. Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007). After seven months of discovery Judge Anderson found the facts as alleged in the Complaint could result in a total amount in controversy in excess of five million dollars as required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). There being no clear error in Judge Anderson's Findings and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Anderson's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 39) are adopted in full. Plaintiffs motion to remand (doc. 8) is DENIED . . ~ Dated this ~oay of September, 2013. Dana L. Christensen, District Judge United States District Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.