UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION FBRG HOSPITALITY DEVELOPERS, § LP, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL NO. 1:25-CV-01154-ADA v. § § REAGAN NATIONAL ADVERTISING § OF AUSTIN, LLC, § § Defendant. § § § § ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell. ECF No. 20. The report recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 16). The report and recommendation was filed on October 8, 2025. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court.

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

(5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996)). The district court may decline a party’s request to hear new evidence not before the Magistrate Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Defendant filed objections on October 22, 2025. ECF No. 24. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s Motion and Defendant’s Response, the notice of removal, Defendant’s objections to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. Defendant’s allegations in its notice of removal are insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction because Defendant failed to plead jurisdictional facts related to an LLC. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 § 4 (failing to plead residency of Defendant’s members). Defendant failed to correct this issue in its Response to Plaintiff's Motion. See, e.g., ECF No. 17-1 (failing to identify the residency of Defendant’s members at the time of removal). The Court declines Defendant’s submission of new evidence provided after Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell provided his report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell (ECF No. 20) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED-IN- PART as to Plaintiff's request to remand. All other relief is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this action, is remanded to the 216th Judicial District Court of Gillespie County, Texas. SIGNED this 18th day of November, 2025. (Yous O\oo ALAN D ATBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE