In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, 16-md-02741-VC. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190718862
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2019
Summary: PRETRIAL ORDER No. 162: DENYING MOTION TO REMAND IN ACOSTA V. MONSANTO CO. Dkt. No. 2674 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Construing Acosta's notice of supplemental authority as a motion to remand, the motion is denied on timeliness grounds. Acosta filed the motion almost a year after her case was removed, and a violation of the forum-defendant rule is not a jurisdictional defect. See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 , 942 (9th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (setting a
Summary: PRETRIAL ORDER No. 162: DENYING MOTION TO REMAND IN ACOSTA V. MONSANTO CO. Dkt. No. 2674 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . Construing Acosta's notice of supplemental authority as a motion to remand, the motion is denied on timeliness grounds. Acosta filed the motion almost a year after her case was removed, and a violation of the forum-defendant rule is not a jurisdictional defect. See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 , 942 (9th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) (setting a 3..
More
PRETRIAL ORDER No. 162: DENYING MOTION TO REMAND IN ACOSTA V. MONSANTO CO.
Dkt. No. 2674
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
Construing Acosta's notice of supplemental authority as a motion to remand, the motion is denied on timeliness grounds. Acosta filed the motion almost a year after her case was removed, and a violation of the forum-defendant rule is not a jurisdictional defect. See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (setting a 30-day time limit for motions to remand).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
