Moncada v. Geokinetics, Inc. et al
Filing
37
ORDER on Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, ORDER on Motion to Remand and ORDER Remanding Matter, and ORDER on Motion to Dismiss, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/16/2011. The Findings and Recommendation #33 is ADOPTED IN FULL; Plaintiffs Motion to Remand #18 is GRANTED; This Matter is REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court; Defendants Motion to Dismiss #5 is DENIED as MOOT; and Upon Remanding This Matter, the Clerk Shall CLOSE This Case. Copy of remand order sent to Kern County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
RUBEN MONCADA, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
PETROLEUM GE-SERVICES, a
)
Norwegian company, et al.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
____________________________________)
1:11-CV-1352 AWI JLT
ORDER ON MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION,
ORDER ON MOTION TO
REMAND AND ORDER
REMANDING MATTER, and
ORDER ON MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Doc. Nos. 5, 18, 33)
14
15
16
This class action was removed by Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) on August
17
12, 2011. On August 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. See Court’s Docket Doc.
18
No. 5. On September 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. See id. at Doc. No. 18. On
19
September 30, 2011, by minute order, the motion to remand was reset before Magistrate Judge
20
Thurston. See id. at Doc. No. 21.
21
On October 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation
22
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. The Findings and Recommendation
23
recommend granting Plaintiffs’ motion to remand due to Defendants’ failure to adequately
24
establish the $5 million amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). See
25
Court’s Docket Doc. No. 33. That is, the Magistrate Judge concluded that there was no
26
jurisdiction over this matter. See id. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
27
Recommendation were due on November 8, 2011. However, no party has filed objections.
28
1
The Court has conducted a review of the case in accordance with the provisions of 28
2
U.S.C. § 636. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate
3
Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis.
4
Defendants have not adequately met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and thus, have
5
failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. In such a circumstance, the Court is obligated to
6
remand this matter to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
7
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1.
10
The Findings and Recommendation issued October 25, 2011 (Doc. No. 33) is
ADOPTED IN FULL;
11
2.
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED;
12
3.
This matter is REMANDED forthwith to the Kern County Superior Court, in
13
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c);
14
4.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED as moot; and
15
5.
Upon remanding this matter, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated:
0m8i78
November 16, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
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?
