St. Clair v. George

N.D. Texas

St. Clair v. George

DecidedApril 24, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00106

StatusUnknown

This text of St. Clair v. George (St. Clair v. George) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Clair v. George, (N.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

DANIEL ST. CLAIR § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-106-P § LEONARD BERNARD GEORGE §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Daniel St. Clair’s Motion for Remand [doc. 9], filed March 10, 2025.1 Having carefully consider the motion and response, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED for the reasons stated in Defendant’s response.2 Specifically, the Court notes that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), Defendant timely removed the case from state court well within 30 days after Defendant received a copy of Plaintiff’s state- court amended petition from which it first could ascertain that the case is one which had become removable. In addition, none of the exhibits listed by Plaintiff in his motion to dismiss qualify as “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3) that would have started the time limit running for the case to be removed prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s amended petition in state court. See, e.g., Zea v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 603, 606 (S.D. Tex. 2006); Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1992); Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2002).

1 On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Petition in the Justice Court, Precinct 7, of Tarrant County, Texas under cause no. JP07-24-SC00011554. (Defendant’s Notice of Removal (“Def.’s Not. of Removal”) at 1 & Exhibit (“Ex.”) D.) On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition, which, for the first time, set forth a federal claim for relief under, inter alia, the Fair Housing Act. (Def.’s Not. of Removal at Ex. A, p. 2.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on February 6, 2025 [doc. 1].

2 The Court notes that a motion to remand a case to state court has been deemed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to be a dispositive matter. See Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 765 (5th Cir. 2016) (“We therefore join the uniform view of the courts of appeals that have considered this question and hold that a motion to remand is a dispositive matter on which a magistrate judge should enter a recommendation to the district court subject to de novo review.”). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to an action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation (“FCR”) within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of such FCR. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until May 8, 2025, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections. SIGNED April 24, 2025. Cc) 7 rhe. Spite IPED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

DANIEL ST. CLAIR § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-106-P § LEONARD BERNARD GEORGE §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Daniel St. Clair’s Motion for Remand [doc. 9], filed March 10, 2025.1 Having carefully consider the motion and response, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED for the reasons stated in Defendant’s response.2 Specifically, the Court notes that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3), Defendant timely removed the case from state court well within 30 days after Defendant received a copy of Plaintiff’s state- court amended petition from which it first could ascertain that the case is one which had become removable. In addition, none of the exhibits listed by Plaintiff in his motion to dismiss qualify as “other paper” under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3) that would have started the time limit running for the case to be removed prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s amended petition in state court. See, e.g., Zea v. Avis Rent a Car Sys., Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 603, 606 (S.D. Tex. 2006); Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1992); Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 2002).

1 On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Petition in the Justice Court, Precinct 7, of Tarrant County, Texas under cause no. JP07-24-SC00011554. (Defendant’s Notice of Removal (“Def.’s Not. of Removal”) at 1 & Exhibit (“Ex.”) D.) On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition, which, for the first time, set forth a federal claim for relief under, inter alia, the Fair Housing Act. (Def.’s Not. of Removal at Ex. A, p. 2.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on February 6, 2025 [doc. 1].

2 The Court notes that a motion to remand a case to state court has been deemed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to be a dispositive matter. See Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 819 F.3d 758, 765 (5th Cir. 2016) (“We therefore join the uniform view of the courts of appeals that have considered this question and hold that a motion to remand is a dispositive matter on which a magistrate judge should enter a recommendation to the district court subject to de novo review.”). NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to an action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation (“FCR”) within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of such FCR. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until May 8, 2025, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections. SIGNED April 24, 2025. Cc) 7 rhe. Spite IPED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

St. Clair v. George, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-clair-v-george-txnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack