Jackson et al v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC et al, No. 2:2018cv06692 - Document 14 (E.D. La. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that the plaintiffs 13 Request for oral argument is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on the 10 Motion to Remand is hereby continued to September 5, 2018, on the papers. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/21/2018.(clc)

Download PDF
Jackson et al v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DONNA C. JACKSON, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 18-6692 DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL. SECTION "F" ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ request for oral argument on their motion to remand, which submission on August 22, 2018. is presently noticed for The request is DENIED for the following reasons. It is the Court’s policy to grant oral argument on motions if one of the following factors is present: 1. There is a need for an evidentiary hearing. 2. The motion or opposition papers involve a novel or complex issue of law that is unsettled. 3. The motion or opposition papers argue for a change in existing law. 4. The motion or opposition papers implicate a constitutional issue. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 5. The case itself is of widespread community interest. Because the plaintiffs’ motion to remand does not involve any of the above factors, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiffs’ request for oral argument is DENIED. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the hearing on the motion to remand is hereby continued to September 5, 2018, on the papers. New Orleans, Louisiana, August 21, 2018 ______________________________ MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In support of their request for oral argument, the plaintiffs note that this case has received media attention. Indeed, the media has been covering the now many cases filed against the defendants concerning chloroprene emissions. However, the issues raised in the motion to remand are purely legal issues that do not concern the merits of the claims; no party suggests that the jurisdictional issue presented by the motion -- whether the allegations satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy required for this Court to exercise diversity jurisdiction -- is a novel issue or one of widespread community interest. The only issue is whether the case will be heard by this Court or state court. 2 1

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.