Williams v. Beemiller, Inc.

Daniel Williams and his father (plaintiffs) sued in state court alleging Beemiller Inc., Charles Brown, MKS Supply Inc., International Gun-A-Rama and others (defendants) negligently sold or distributed the gun a drive-by shooter used to shoot and injure Williams. Beemiller and Brown removed the case to federal court with the consent of MKS Supply and International Gun-A-Rama, but not the other defending parties. The Williamses moved for remand based on the failure to obtain the requisite consent. The federal district court referred all non-dispositive matters to a magistrate judge to decide under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The magistrate judge entered a decision and order granting remand, reasoning a motion for remand was not dispositive because it determined only whether a basis for federal jurisdiction supported removal, not the merits of any claims or defenses. However, the magistrate acknowledged contrary authority and invited the district court to treat the decision and order as a report and recommendation. The parties that agreed to removal objected to the magistrate’s order, arguing the district court should review it de novo as a report and recommendation on a dispositive motion. The district court denied the objections, found the remand motion non-dispositive, reviewed the magistrate’s decision and remand order, and found it proper. The parties supporting removal appealed, arguing the district court had to review the issue de novo on the ground that remand was dispositive.