CAMPILLO v. ANTAKI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MARK A. CAMPILLO, Civ. No. 19-9298 (KM/SCM) Plaintiff, ORDER v. ALAN ANTAKI, Defendant.

MCNULTY, District Judge THIS MATTER having come before the court on the plaintiff's motion (DE 4) to remand this removed case; and IT APPEARING that the Hon. Steven C. Mannion, U.S. Magistrate Judge, to whom the motion was referred, carefully analyzed the case and filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the motion be denied (DE 16); and IT APPEARING that no objection to the R&R has been filed, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b}; L. Civ. R. 72.1¢(2); and THE COURT having reviewed the R&R de novo despite the lack of an objection; and IT APPEARING, as noted in the R&R, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has approved so-called “snap removal” as a means of defeating the forum-defendant limitation on removal of diversity cases;! and IT APPEARING that, as Judge Mannion found, effective service under state law was not accomplished before the notice of removal was filed, so the “snap removal” exception to the forum-defendant limitation applied;?

1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2); Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Ine., 902 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2018).

And the Court finding itself in substantial agreement with, and therefore adopting, Judge Mannion’s well-reasoned R&R; IT IS this 19% day of August, 2019, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (DE 16) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R, Civ. P. 72(b)(3);3 and is further ORDERED that the motion to remand (DE 2) is DENIED, without costs or fees.

KEVIN MCNULTY, J | NN).

2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (exception applies “if any of the parties properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen” of the forum state) (emphasis added).

Although “snap removal,” as a policy matter, makes little sense to this Court, like the Third Circuit I am bound by the literal wording of the statute. The remedy, if any, lies with the legislature.

3 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680 (1980) (stating that the district court judge has broad discretion in accepting or rejecting the magistrate's recommendation).