Hopewell v. Hopewell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARTHUR W. HOPEWELL, as
Trustee of The James L. Hopewell
Trust u/a/d 12/12/14 and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
James L. Hopewell (Deceased),
Plaintiff,
v.
EARL HOPEWELL,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-1132
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Arthur W. Hopewell brought this action in state court. Defendant Earl Hopewell
filed a notice of removal to this Court and then Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. On December
8, 2025, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court remand
the matter to state court because Defendant has not shown that the Court possesses jurisdiction and
because Defendant’s notice of removal was untimely. (R&R, ECF No. 20.) The magistrate judge
also recommends that the Court award Plaintiff his attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of
the improper removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant has objected to the R&R, and Plaintiff
has filed an affidavit of fees and costs.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72,
the district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Case 1:25-cv-01132-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 1
of 2

2
In his objections, Defendant fails to identify any error in the R&R. Indeed, Defendant’s
objections do not discuss the jurisdictional issues or the timing of his notice of removal. Similarly,
Defendant does not assert any objection to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff should
be awarded costs and attorney’s fees. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (ECF No. 20) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to Kent County
Circuit Court (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REMANDED to Kent County Circuit
Court, except that the Court retains jurisdiction to decide the amount of fees and costs to award
Plaintiff for Defendant’s improper removal.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Earl Hopewell shall have fourteen days
from this date to file a response to Plaintiff’s affidavit of fees and costs (ECF No. 21).
Dated: February 3, 2026 	/s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01132-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 27, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/03/26 Page 2
of 2