Abad v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., et al., No. 1:2007cv00828 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Remand, Vacating Oral Argument Set for February 9, 2009, and Directing Plaintiff to Lodge Order, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 02/02/2009. Lodged Order due by 2/13/2009.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VINCENT ABAD, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 14 DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT SERVICE, INC., SPRINT PCS, AND DOES 1 - 20, 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV-F-07-828 OWW/DLB MEMORANDUM DECISION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND (Doc. 19), VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT SET FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2009, AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO LODGE ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Vincent Abad s motion to remand this action to the Kern County Superior Court. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Kern County Superior 21 Court on February 14, 2007 against Defendants Diversified 22 Adjustment Service, Inc., Sprint PCS, and Does 1-20. 23 Complaint alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices 24 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, against Diversified, and violation of the 25 Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil 26 Code § 1788, against Sprint PCS. The The action was removed to this 1 1 Court by Defendant Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. on June 2 6, 2007 on the ground that Plaintiff s claim against Diversified 3 was separate and independent from Plaintiff s claim against 4 Sprint PCS. 5 Stipulation and Order filed on June 25, 2008, Plaintiff dismissed 6 the action against Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. with 7 prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure. 9 By Lilys D. McCoy, counsel for Plaintiff, avers: 5. The only remaining defendant, Sprint PCS, was served with the summons and complaint on or about March 26, 2007 via certified mail, return-receipt-requested pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.40. Defendant Sprint PCS did not file a responsive pleading in the Superior Court of California, remove the action to the United States District Court or file a responsive pleading in the United States District [Court]. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Sprint PCS did not join in the removal. Because the claim upon which federal subject matter 17 jurisdiction rests has been dismissed and there has been no 18 substantial commitment of judicial resources to the nonfederal 19 claim, the Court exercises its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1441(c) to remand this action to the Kern County Superior Court. 21 See Albingia Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Intern. Inc., 344 22 F.3d, amended on other grounds, 350 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.2003), 23 cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1041 (2004); See Murphy v. Kodz, 351 F.2d 24 163, 167-168 (9th Cir.1965). 25 For the reasons stated: 26 1. Plaintiff s motion to remand this action to the Kern 2 1 County Superior Court is GRANTED; 2 2. Oral argument set for February 9, 2009 is VACATED; 3 3. Plaintiff shall lodge a form of order granting the 4 motion to remand and remanding the action to the Kern County 5 Superior Court within five (5) court days from the date of 6 service of this Memorandum Decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: 668554 February 2, 2009 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.