Robert Dunwoody v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al
Filing
6
MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order Remandig Case to State Court; On November 3, 2008, we ordered Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Defendant) to showcause why the above captioned case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 4 . Defe ndant responded to the OSC on November 14, 2008 5 . In its response, Defendant admits that Plaintiffs complaint does not provide information sufficient to allow it to meet its burden to demonstrate the requirements for federal jurisdiction. Defendan t further acknowledges that it is appropriate to remand this case to state court. Furthermore, Defendant failed to adequately respond to our OSC by providing information necessary for us to properly determine its corporate citizenship for purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Based on Defendants failure to respond adequately to our OSC, as well as its acknowledgment that remand is appropriate in this case, Defendant is DEEMED to have admitted that we lack subject matter jurisdict ion over this case. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the state court from which it was removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (cc Minute Order, Letter of Remand and Docket Sheet to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC397930) (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ir)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 08-7053-GHK (PLAx) Robert Dunwoody v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. Date November 20, 2008
Presiding: The Honorable Beatrice Herrera Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: (none) Proceedings:
GEORGE H. KING, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE N/A Court Reporter / Recorder N/A Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Defendants: ( none)
(In Chambers) Order Remanding Case to State Court
On November 3, 2008, we ordered Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. ("Defendant") to show cause why the above captioned case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant responded to the OSC on November 14, 2008. In its response, Defendant admits that Plaintiff's complaint does not provide information sufficient to allow it to meet its burden to demonstrate the requirements for federal jurisdiction. Defendant further acknowledges that it is appropriate to remand this case to state court. Furthermore, Defendant failed to adequately respond to our OSC by providing information necessary for us to properly determine its corporate citizenship for purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Based on Defendant's failure to respond adequately to our OSC, as well as its acknowledgment that remand is appropriate in this case, Defendant is DEEMED to have admitted that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the state court from which it was removed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of Deputy Clerk Bea
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
