Cretian et al v. Job1USA, Inc.
Filing
25
ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand 8 ; Adopting Findings and Recommendation 19 . This matter is REMANDED to Multnomah County Circuit Court. Signed on 12/11/09 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (mkk)
<![CDATA[
/
I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON
CASSANDRA CRBTIAN, LOLITA BENNETT, CHARIJ!:S DIAHN, BRIAN W . F I T C H , GILBERT N E V E R S , HASSAN NOOR, BARNABE SANTOS, a n d CHARLES FRAIZER,
09-CV-770-ST ORDER
Plaintiffs, v. JOB1USA, I N C . , a n O h i o corporation, Defendant.
BROWN, J u d g e .
Magistra~e
J u d g e J a n i c e M. S t e w a r t i s s u e d F i n d i n g s a n d
Recommendation (#19) on September 18, 2009, in which she recommended the Court grant P l a i n t i f f s ' Motion t o Remand (#8). Defendant filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 1 - ORDER The m a t t e r i s now b e f o r e t h i s Court p u r s u a n t t o
28 U . S . C . § 6 3 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) a n d F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 7 2 ( b ) . When a n y p a r t y o b j e c t s t o a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e M a g i s t r a t e Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the d i s t r i c t court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C.
§
636(b) (1).
See also United States v. Reyna-
T a p i a , 3 2 8 F . 3 d 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 2 1 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( e n b a n e ) ; U n i t e d States v. Bernhardt, 840 F. 2d 1441, 1444 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) .
In i t s Objections, Defendant contends the Magistrate Judge erred when she r e l i e d on several cases decided before Harris v. B a n k e r s L i f e & C a s u a l t y , C o . , 4 2 5 F . 3 d 6 8 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , t o r e a c h h e r f i n d i n g t h a t D e f e n d a n t " i s p r e s u m e d t o k n o w i t s own c i t i z e n s h i p ; indeed i t i s i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o know i t " f o r purposes of removal. The Court notes a t l e a s t two d i s t r i c t
courts in the Ninth Circuit have held after Harris that for purposes of the timeliness of removal, courts can presume a defendant "is aware of various basic personal facts, including the location of one's citizenship, without delving into the prohibited area of a defendant's subjective knowledge". S e e KDY,
I n c . v . H y d r o s l o t t e r C o r p . , N o . 0 8 - 4 0 7 4 S C , 2 0 0 8 WL 4 9 3 8 2 8 1 , a t *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008). See also Villareal v. Demarco,
N o . CV 0 9 - 0 4 5 2 PA ( V B K x ) , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 7 9 1 1 1 , a t * 2 ( C . D . C a l . Feb. 5, 2009) (same). The C o u r t a g r e e s w i t h r e a s o n i n g o f KDY a n d
V i l l a r e a l and concludes the Magistrate Judge did not e r r when she f o u n d D e f e n d a n t i s p r e s u m e d t o know i t s own c i t i z e n s h i p f o r 2 - ORDER
purposes o f r e m o v a l . This Court has carefully considered Defendant's other Objections, notes they are reiterations of the arguments contained in Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, and concludes they do not provide a b a s i s t o modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the
pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
T h e C o u r t ADOPTS M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e S t e w a r t ' s F i n d i n g s
~nd
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n ( # 1 9 ) , GRANTS P l a i n t i f f s ' M o t i o n t o R e m a n d ( # 8 ) , a n d REMANDS t h i s m a t t e r t o M u l t n o m a h C o u n t y C i r c u i t C o u r t . I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s ~ d a y o f D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 9 .
1lU;.1
ANNA J . BROWN United States District Judge
3 - ORDER
]]>
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?
