Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-01084/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-01084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Heritage Bank of the South,

as successor to Frontier Bank;

Plaintiff,

v.

Jones & Jones Construction LLC, 

and Vernon C. Jones;

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 2:13-cv-1084-TMP

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 

RECOMMITTING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that (1) the Court grant Heritage Bank’s motion for summary 

judgment, or in the alternative for default judgment (Doc. 19), to the extent that 

default be entered in favor of plaintiff Heritage Bank and against defendant Jones 

& Jones, on the claim for breach of the note; (2) summary judgment be entered in 

favor of Heritage Bank and against Mr. Jones on the breach of guaranty claim; and 

(3) summary judgment be entered in favor of the FDIC on any counterclaim 

asserted by Mr. Jones. (Doc. 19, p. 12). No party filed an objection to the Report 

and Recommendation.

FILED

 2014 Aug-12 AM 10:15

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-01084-RDP Document 22 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 2
2

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

Court file, including the Report and Recommendation, the Court ACCEPTS and 

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s finding that the FDIC appears as a party “only to 

the extent that it is a defendant to a counterclaim of breach of some unwritten 

agreement to which [the defendant] alludes in his letter.” (Doc. 19, p. 10). Thus, 

“the only claims before the court are the plaintiff’s claims of breach of the note, 

and breach of the guaranty.” (Doc. 19, p. 10 n. 5). In light of this finding and 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court RECOMMITS this action to the 

Magistrate Judge to examine subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court 

asks the Magistrate Judge to please address whether the Court may properly

exercise subject matter jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule1 or under 

28 U.S.C §1441(c).

The Court asks the Clerk to please TERM Doc. 19.

DONE and ORDERED this August 11, 2014.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 1 See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 828 (2002) 

(holding that district court did not properly exercise jurisdiction on the basis of a compulsory 

counterclaim which arose under federal law when the plaintiff’s claims did not provide a basis 

for federal jurisdiction).

Case 2:13-cv-01084-RDP Document 22 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 2