Facts
- The LCF Group, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Columbia Steel, Inc., alleging breach of contract in Nassau County Supreme Court [lines="29-34"].
- Defendants subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York [lines="35"].
- On December 15, 2024, the LCF Group moved to remand the case back to state court and requested attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) [lines="37"].
- The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione for a Report and Recommendation regarding the remand motion [lines="39-40"].
- Judge Tiscione recommended granting the remand and denying the request for attorneys’ fees, and no objections were filed by the parties [lines="42-45"].
Issues
- Whether the removal of the case from state court to federal court was proper under the relevant laws [lines="37"].
- Whether the motion to remand should be granted and the request for attorneys' fees denied based on the findings of Judge Tiscione [lines="44"].
Holdings
- The court granted the motion to remand the case to state court, indicating that the removal was not justified [lines="73"].
- The request for attorneys’ fees was denied as Judge Tiscione's recommendations were upheld without objection [lines="74"].
OPINION
Case Information
*0 FILED CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE *1 Case 2:23-cv-07983-JMA-ST Document 14 Filed 10/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 528
10/3/2024 10:58 am UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X For Online Publication Only
THE LCF GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
-against- ORDER
23-cv-07983-JMA-ST COLUMBIA STEEL, INC., et al. ,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff The LCF Group, Inc. brought this action against Defendants Columbia Steel, Inc.
d/b/a Columbia Steel, Kratos Equity LLC, Champion Erectors, Inc., First Columbia Properties,
LLC, Tenkey LLC, Columbia Steel Inc.-ESOP, Theisen Steel Inc., 16 Rue Grand Vallee, LLC,
Casmalia2175, LLC, 627-48 Skyview, LLC, Precision Fabrication Systems LLC, Sierra Bonita
Theisen, LLC, and Gustavo Theisen in the Nassau County Supreme Court alleging breach of
contract. Defendants then removed the action to this Court. (ECF No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”).)
On December 15, 2024, Plaintiff moved to remand this action to state court and for attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (See ECF 12 (“Pl. Mot.”).) On April 16, 2024, this
Court referred Plaintiff’s motion to Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione for a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”). (See Elec. Order dated Apr. 16, 2024.)
Before the Court today is a R&R from Judge Tiscione (ECF No. 13), which recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to remand be granted and that Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees be
denied. No objections to the R&R have been filed; the time for doing so has expired. For the
reasons stated below, the R&R is adopted in its entirety .
1
Case 2:23-cv-07983-JMA-ST Document 14 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 529
A district 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 F ED . R. C IV . P.
72(b)(3); Grassia v. Scully, 892 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1989). “Where parties receive clear notice of
the consequences, failure to timely object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation operates
as a waiver of further judicial review of the magistrate’s decision.” Smith v. Campbell, 782 F.3d
93, 102 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Mario v. P & C Food Mkts., Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir.
2002)); see also Phillips v. Long Island R.R. Co., 832 F. App’x 99, 100 (2d Cir. 2021) (same). In - - --- ---------------------
the absence of any objections, “the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record.” Estate of Ellington ex rel. Ellington v. Harbrew Imports Ltd., 812 F.
Supp. 2d 186, 189 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal citations omitted). Clear error will be found only
when, upon review of the entire record, the Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting
United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 222 (2d Cir. 2005)).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and the unopposed R&R for clear error and, finding none, hereby adopts Judge Tiscione’s well-reasoned and thirty-three page R&R in its
entirety as the opinion of the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand this action to state court is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to
close ECF Nos. 9, 12, 13, enter judgment, and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2024
Central Islip, New York
/s/ JMA JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2