Walters et al v. Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC
| Bonnie Walters and James Walters |
| Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC |
| 6:2020cv00168 |
| August 5, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Hanly A Ingram |
| Robert E Wier |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER: Defendant filed a Notice of Removal from the Clay Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. DE #1 . After full briefing from the parties as to jurisdictional issues (see DE #5 , #7 , #8 ), Judge Ingram recommended that this matter be remanded back to state court for lack of jurisdiction. DE #9 . Judge Ingram expressly informed the parties of their right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See id. at 6. Defendant objects to the recommendation. DE #10 . Plaintiffs responded to the Defendant's objection. DE #11 . The Court, rejecting the objection, ADOPTS DE #9 and REMANDS this matter to state court. Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier on 10/2/2020. (MM)cc: COR
|
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Hanly A. Ingram for review: #11 Response to Objection to Report and Recommendations (MM) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE TO OBJECTION to #9 Report and Recommendations filed by Bonnie Walters, James Walters. (Dixon, Melissa) |
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Hanly A. Ingram for review: #10 Objection to Report and Recommendations (MM) |
| Filing 10 OBJECTION to #9 Report and Recommendations Defendant's Objection to And Appeal from Recommended Disposition filed by Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC. (Stanley, Christine) |
| Filing 9 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION: The Court RECOMMENDS that this matter be REMANDED back to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The relevant law is settled, and Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Any objection to this recommendation must be asserted in response to this Recommended Disposition. Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this decision, any party may serve and file specific written objections to any or all findings or recommendations for determination, de novo, by the District Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram on 9/14/2020.(MM)cc: COR |
| Filing 8 REPLY to #7 RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER filed by Bonnie Walters, James Walters. (Dixon, Melissa) Modified on 8/24/2020 (RBB). |
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Hanly A. Ingram for review: #8 REPLY to #7 RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER (RBB) |
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of Hanly A. Ingram for review: #7 Response to Order to Show Cause, (MM) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC #5 filed by Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 Demand Letter, #2 Exhibit 2 Request for Admission)(Stanley, Christine) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Bonnie Walters, James Walters. (Dixon, Melissa) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, on or before Thursday, August 20, 2020, Defendant shall SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be remanded for lack of diversity jurisdiction, submitting any relevant proof and addressing all implicated topics. Plaintiffs may respond within seven days of Defendants filing. Defendant may reply within three days of any filing by Plaintiffs. The matter will then stand submitted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram on 8/10/2020.(MM)cc: COR
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT AND REFERRAL ORDER: 1. At the outset, the Court reminds the parties that, under Rule 1, they share with the Court the duty to construe, administer, and employ the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of this action; 2. Pursuant to 28:636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court refers this case to the appropriate United States Magistrate Judge for this Division; 3. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court retains for decision any motion dispositive of a claim or defense (as well as motions regulating the trial proof, including Daubert and motions in limine); 4. Concurrent with the filing of any Rule 12 motion, the moving party may file, as a separate motion, any request for a discovery stay pending resolution. The Court refers consideration of any such motion to the assigned Magistrate Judge; 5. Discovery Disputes shall be resolved as defined within this order; The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter this Standing Order in the undersigned's civil cases excepting Social Security, pro se, and prisoner post-conviction matters at case opening (or as the Court otherwise directs). Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier. (SYD)cc: COR
|
| Conflict Check run. (SYD) |
| Filing 2 FRCP 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC. (SYD) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Clay Circuit Court, case number 20-CI-134, filed by Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC.( Filing fee $400; receipt number 0643-4741549) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Notice of Filing State Court Record, #3 State Court Record)(SYD) |
| ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Landmark of Laurel Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, LLC. Attached to the NOR as part of the State Court Record. (SYD) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
