Gifford v. Greenberg et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
)
)
)
)
) 	Civil No. 3:25-cv-616
) 	Judge Trauger
CARLA GIFFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL S. GREENBERG, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. 	)
O R D E R
On January 30, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(Doc No. 12), to which the pro se defendant Daniel S. Greenberg has filed Objections (Doc. No. 13),
to which objections the plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. No. 15). The Report and
Recommendation recommends that the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6) be granted.
Defendant Daniel S. Greenberg removed this case from the Davidson County Chancery
Court on June 4, 2025, alleging federal court jurisdiction (Doc. No. 1). On June 24, 2025, the
plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6), based upon the fact that this is a state court
partition action filed entirely under Tennessee state law. (Doc. No. 6). The Certificate of Service
for the motion shows that it was mailed and/or emailed to the correct address for defendant
Daniel S. Greenberg (Doc. No. 6 at 3). Mr. Greenberg did not respond to the Motion to Remand.
On November 6, 2025, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Ascertain Status of Case because the
court had not yet ruled upon the Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 7). This motion, too, was mailed
and/or emailed to the correct address for Mr. Greenberg (Doc. No. 7 at 2). Still, Mr. Greenberg
filed nothing with the court until January 22, 2026, when he filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief,
Sanctions, and Disqualification Based on Improper State Court Proceedings and Attorney
Collusion (Doc. No. 9).
Case 3:25-cv-00616 Document 17 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>

As the Report and Recommendation states, the Local Rules of this court require that a
response be filed to motions within 14 days after service and, if no timely response is filed, the
motion is deemed unopposed. (Doc. No. 12 at 2). The record establishes that Mr. Greenberg not
only did not timely respond to the Motion to Remand, but he never responded to the Motion to
Remand at all, instead attempting to raise other issues with the court having nothing to do with the
Motion to Remand. For this reason alone, the Motion to Remand should be granted.
For these reasons, the court ACCEPTS IN PART the Report and Recommendation and
grants the Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 6) as unopposed. The Clerk shall return this case to the
Chancery Court for Davidson County, from whence it was removed.
It is so ORDERED.
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00616 Document 17 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>