(PS) Yeager, et al v. Parsons Behle & Latimer et al, No. 2:2014cv02544 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/24/2015 ORDERING that the 43 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff's 13 motion to remand is DENIED. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of an order in the related case, No. 13-0007, on the question of General Yeager's competency to proceed without representation. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF

(PS) Yeager, et al v. Parsons Behle & Latimer et al Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” YEAGER (RET.), et al., Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-2544 KJM DAD PS ORDER v. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, PLC, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 Plaintiffs, General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager, Ret., and Victoria Yeager, his 18 19 wife, are proceeding pro se in this case. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). On December 16, 2014, the Yeagers filed a joint motion to remand this case to 21 22 California Superior Court. ECF No. 13. The defendants opposed the motion, ECF No. 27, and 23 the Yeagers filed a joint reply, ECF No. 29. On August 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed 24 findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 25 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 26 days after service of the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 43. The Yeagers filed joint 27 objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 44, and the defendants filed a response, 28 ECF No. 46. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In a related case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Yeager, et al., No. 13-007 (E.D. Cal. filed 2 Jan. 2, 2013), also pending before the undersigned, the court recently held an evidentiary hearing 3 on the question of General Yeager’s ability to proceed without counsel. See Minutes Sept. 14, 4 2015, Case No. 13-007, ECF No. 218. The court has not yet issued an order on that question; 5 however, the court concludes it may decide the question before it in this motion because the 6 court’s order does not serve as a judgment on the merits of the parties’ dispute. Cf. Allen v. 7 Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that in a non-habeas civil case, if an 8 incompetent person is unrepresented, the court may not enter a judgment on the merits without 9 complying with Rule 17(c)); Nutter v. Monongahela Power Co., 4 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 1993) 10 (“[A] district court’s findings incident to an order of remand have no preclusive effect.” (citing, 11 inter alia, Whitman v. Raley’s Inc., 886 F.2d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 1989))). 12 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 13 this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds 14 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, and 15 adopts them in full. The court writes separately here only to address two points raised in 16 objection to the findings and recommendations. 17 First, the Yeagers argue, as they did in their motion, that the defendants owed them 18 a fiduciary duty (1) to inform them that should a dispute arise, and should they later file an action 19 in state court, federal law could potentially allow removal of the case to federal district court, and 20 (2) not to remove the case to federal district court should adjudication in federal court be less 21 favorable to the Yeagers. Other than general statements of an attorney’s fiduciary duty to his or 22 her client, the Yeagers cite no authority to support these arguments, and the court is aware of 23 none. 24 Second, the Yeagers argue public policy favors remand to state court. “[F]ederal 25 courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise their jurisdiction except in those 26 extraordinary circumstances ‘where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would 27 clearly serve an important countervailing interest.’” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 203 28 (1988) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 2 1 (1976)). The Yeagers have pointed to no circumstances that require adjudication in state courts. 2 Moreover, the defendants have a legitimate interest in this court’s jurisdiction. See Lively v. Wild 3 Oats Markets, 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is intended 4 to protect out-of-state defendants from possible prejudices in state court.”). 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2015 (Dkt. No. 43) are 7 adopted in full; 8 2. Plaintiff’s December 16, 2014 motion to remand (Dkt. No. 13) is denied; and 9 3. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of an order in the related case, 10 No. 13-0007, on the question of General Yeager’s competency to proceed without representation. 11 DATED: September 24, 2015. 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.