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.”
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.”
In a contract and tortious-interference suit removed on diversity grounds, Wettre issued a sua sponte order to show cause on subject-matter jurisdiction, and no party responded. She recommended remand under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) because a Bahamian plaintiff and Bahamian co-defendant destroyed diversity under Field v. Volkswagenwerk even with a domestic co-defendant under Charge Anywhere, and the state-law claims presented no federal question. A pending Rule 12 motion to dismiss was not reached. This was a recommendation rather than a final order, and Cecchi's adoption was not verified. Recommended disposition: '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.”
Judge Madeline Cox Arleo's April 20, 2020 order adopted Wettre's sua sponte recommendation as modified. Fifty-eight models sued about 21 New Jersey strip clubs for image misappropriation. Wettre found the plaintiffs misjoined under Rule 20 because their claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, and recommended dismissing without prejudice all claims except the first plaintiff's so they could be refiled separately. Arleo modified the recommendation only to allow Acosta's claims to proceed against two clubs rather than one. The severance recommendation arose from the court's own review, not a party motion. Arleo separately denied a defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.
“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.”
“It is therefore respectfully recommended that this action be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”
“the Court declines to exercise its broad discretion to award plaintiff whatever costs she may have incurred in connection with his motion to remand. Therefore, the Court recommends that plaintiff’s application for costs be denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, this Court respectfully recommends that plaintiff's motion to remand this action to the Superior Court of New Jersey be GRANTED.”
“For the above reasons, this Court recommends that Yeti's motion to dismiss be GRANTED.”
Put Judge Wettre's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Wettre actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Wettre's own signed orders and cites them.