Fein, Such & Crane, LLP v. Buczek

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00737
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AR ES ener COD WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EE re Px > ee may 09 2025 FEIN, SUCH & CRANE LLP: sere corwenssOES DAVID P. CHASE, ESQ.; WESTERN DISTRIELS MARK K. BROYLES, ESQ.; CRAIG K. BEIDEMAN, ESQ., Plaintiffs, 24-CV-737 (JLS) (JJM) Vv. SHANE CHRISTOPHER BUCZEK, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER On April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced this action on April 28, 2024 in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, against Defendant Shane Christopher Buczek. See Dkt. 3-1 at 1-2. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on June 17, 2024. See id.; Dkt. 3-2 (copy of amended summons and complaint). Both complaints allege violation of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 70-a (Anti-SLAPP), abuse of process, and malicious prosecution claims against Buczek in connection with state and federal court actions Buczek commenced against Plaintiffs. See Dkt. 3-1 at 1-2.; Dkt. 3-2. Buczek removed the action to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction on August 6, 2024. Dkt. 1. The Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 2.

On August 22, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to remand to state court. Dkt. 3. Buczek opposed the motion to remand on October 9, 2024. Dkt. 9. On December 4, 2024, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), which concluded that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint does not raise federal question jurisdiction. See Dkt. 11 at 1-7. Judge McCarthy therefore recommended that this Court grant Plaintiffs motion to remand. Dkt. 11. Buczek objected to the R&R. Dkts. 14, 15. Plaintiffs responded. Dkt. 17. Buczek replied. Dkt. 20. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 686 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts the R&R’s recommendation to grant Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

For the reasons in the R&R, Plaintiffs motion for remand (Dkt. 3) is GRANTED, and this case is REMANDED to state court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 9, 2025 is Buffalo, New York ae ae PP Cy □ J OHN LASI ATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE □