Leda Dunn Wettre
How Judge Wettre decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Strongly pro-remand: she reads CAFA's exceptions and the supplemental-jurisdiction doctrine to push removed cases back to state court. Under CAFA she applies the MANDATORY home-state exception and (per Kaufman) measures the two-thirds-citizen / primary-defendant criteria by the defendants remaining at the time of the remand decision, not at removal; and she rejects the argument that CAFA exceptions are 1447(c) 'defects' subject to the 30-day clock.
“the Court rejects defendants’ argument that out-of-state defendant Odyssey Logistics is a ‘primary defendant’ whose inclusion in a now-replaced version of the Complaint precludes satisfaction of the home state exception’s requirements. ... the Court recommends that plaintiff’s Motion to Remand be GRANTED.”
On supplemental jurisdiction she follows the Third Circuit rule that once all independently-federal claims are eliminated pre-trial the case 'no longer belongs in federal court,' and a plaintiff's claim-disclaimer to seek remand is not, without more, impermissible forum manipulation.
“even assuming ... that plaintiffs abandoned the FLSA claims after removal for the purpose of seeking remand to the state court, that is not a sufficient basis per se for the Court to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the action.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to remand N = 3 |
Granted: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to amend N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for attorney fees N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Sanctions N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court recommends that plaintiff’s Motion to Remand be GRANTED. ... It is recommended that the District Court find the mandatory home state exception satisfied here.”
“it is respectfully recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to remand be GRANTED and defendants’ cross-motion for attorney’s fees be DENIED.”
“Defendants’ cross-motion is devoid of legal authority ... for the notion that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) authorizes an award of fees to the party opposing remand of a properly removed case. ... the undersigned respectfully recommends that District Court deny defendants’ cross-motion.”
“the removing party not having met its burden to demonstrate that the case is properly before the Court, the undersigned respectfully recommends that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.”
“this Court respectfully recommends that plaintiff’s Complaint be stricken and the matter be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 37(b)(2)(A), and 16(f)(1).”
“Magistrate Judge Leda Dunn Wettre’s ... Report and Recommendation ... recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be granted. No objections to the R&R were filed. ... ORDERED that the R&R of Judge Wettre (ECF No. 48) is ADOPTED as the conclusions of law of this Court.”
Granule read is Judge Madeline Cox Arleo's ORDER (Document 97, 2020-04-20) adopting AS MODIFIED Wettre's sua sponte R&R (ECF 88, 2019-09-23). 58 models sued ~21 NJ strip clubs for image misappropriation; Wettre, sua sponte (OSC at ECF 56), found the plaintiffs misjoined under Rule 20 (claims do not arise from the same transaction/occurrence) and recommended dismissing all claims except the first plaintiff's WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile separately. Arleo ADOPTED the R&R, modifying only to let Acosta's claims proceed against two clubs rather than one. EXCLUDED from motion stats: sua sponte severance, not a ruling on a party motion. Recorded as an order read with a verified adoption (as modified). (Arleo separately denied a defendant's MTD as moot -- that is the district judge's call, not Wettre's.)
“the Court determines sanctions are justified. The Court therefore stays this action as a discovery sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 until Adams complies with the Court’s Order concerning his deposition.”
“For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend DENIED. The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the Motion to Amend at ECF No. 37.”
“the Court recommends that plaintiff’s motion to reopen this matter and file an amended complaint (ECF No. 19) be DENIED.”