Schmidt v. Lincoln Electric Company, et al., No. 1:2019cv01605 - Document 14 (N.D. Ohio 2019)
Court Description: Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, Doc #: 13 . Accordingly, the Court hereby grants Schmidt's motion for remand, Doc #: 8 . Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 12/17/2019. (K,K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Schmidt v. Lincoln Electric Company, et al. Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RHONDA SCHMIDT ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LINCOLN ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) CASE NO. 1:19-cv-1605 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER OPINION AND ORDER This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (AR&R@), Doc #: 13. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff Rhonda Schmidt’s motion for remand, Doc #: 8, be granted. Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1) (emphasis added). In this case, the R&R was issued on December 2, 2019. It is now December 17, 2019, and Schmidt has yet to file any written objection to the R&R. The failure to timely file written objections to an R&R constitutes a waiver of a de novo review by the district court of any issues covered in the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Dockets.Justia.com Despite the lack of objections, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s thorough, well-written R&R. This case involves an issue on which there is little guidance from the Sixth Circuit – the definition of “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). To prevent the wasteful expenditure of judicial and private resources, courts generally decide close questions on subject matter jurisdiction in favor of remand. See Sanders v. Arctic Cat, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-2286, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48363, at *2 (N.D. Ohio April 11, 2016) (quoting Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 884, 496 (6th Cir. 1994)). Ultimately, the Court agrees with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and the authorities upon which he relies that the email from Lincoln Electric’s counsel does not constitute “other paper” under § 1446(b)(3) and so removal was not proper. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that it need not reach the issue of bad faith under the terms of § 1446(c)(1). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, Doc #: 13. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Schmidt’s motion for remand, Doc #: 8. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan A. Polster December 17, 2019 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
