Nadine Floor Company, Inc. v. Jordan et al — U.S. District Court remanded case to state court, denying defendants’ request for jurisdictional discovery

Reported / Citable

Background

This civil action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 16, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) proposing that the plaintiff, Nadine Floor Company, Inc.’s Motion to Remand be granted and the defendants, Veronica Jordan and Derick Jordan’s Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery be denied. The defendants subsequently filed objections to this Report and Recommendation on June 30, 2026.

The Court’s Holding

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas conducted a de novo review of the defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court found that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions were correct and that the defendants’ objections lacked merit regarding the ultimate findings.

Accordingly, the District Court overruled the defendants’ objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. As a result, the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand was granted, and the defendants’ Motion to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery was denied. The Court further ordered that the case be remanded to the 493rd Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas.

Key Takeaways

• The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation following a de novo review of the defendants’ objections.
• Plaintiff Nadine Floor Company, Inc.’s motion to remand the case to state court was granted.
• Defendants Veronica B. Jordan and Derick Jordan’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery was denied.
• The case was remanded to the 493rd Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas.

Why It Matters

This decision underscores the procedural importance of federal courts’ review of Magistrate Judges’ recommendations, particularly when objections are filed. A de novo review ensures that fundamental issues, such as federal jurisdiction, are thoroughly re-evaluated by the district judge. The outcome highlights that even with objections, if the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning is sound regarding jurisdiction, the district court will uphold the recommendation.

For attorneys, this case serves as a reminder of the strict criteria for establishing and maintaining federal jurisdiction. The denial of jurisdictional discovery and subsequent remand indicates that the defendants failed to present sufficient grounds to warrant further investigation into the basis for federal court jurisdiction. It reinforces the principle that cases lacking a clear basis for federal jurisdiction will be sent back to state courts, emphasizing efficient case management and adherence to jurisdictional limits.