Kelly v. Area 15 Las Vegas LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 JOHN KELLY, Case No.2:24-CV-696 JCM (NJK) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 AREA 15 LAS VEGAS LLC, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 This is a personal injury case removed from state court by the defendants on the basis of 14 diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1). Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report 15 and recommendation (“R&R”) to remand this case back to state court for lack of subject matter 16 jurisdiction. (ECF No. 25, at 8). She notes that the defendants have failed repeatedly to properly 17 identify their citizenship in the certificate of interested parties. (Id. at 2). Essentially, the 18 defendants have failed to bear their burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, 19 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo 21 review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of 22 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United 23 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must 24 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 25 otherwise.”). 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Koppe’s R&R 28 (ECF No. 25) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED, in full. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this case be REMANDED to state court for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction. 3 The clerk is INSTRUCTED to close this case. 4 DATED July 12, 2024. 5 __________________________________________ 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28