Funkhouser v. DAC FF 91, Inc., 19-cv-01197-MMC. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20191108d74
Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION TO STATE COURT Re: Dkt. No. 39 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is a "Joint Stipulation," filed November 5, 2019, "for Removal of Action to State Court," by which the parties seek an order directing the above-titled action be "removed to Santa Cruz County Superior Court" ( see Joint Stip. at 3:21). The parties have not cited any authority for such procedure, and, consequently, the Court declines to issue their proposed
Summary: ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION TO STATE COURT Re: Dkt. No. 39 MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court is a "Joint Stipulation," filed November 5, 2019, "for Removal of Action to State Court," by which the parties seek an order directing the above-titled action be "removed to Santa Cruz County Superior Court" ( see Joint Stip. at 3:21). The parties have not cited any authority for such procedure, and, consequently, the Court declines to issue their proposed ..
More
ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION FOR REMOVAL OF ACTION TO STATE COURT
Re: Dkt. No. 39
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is a "Joint Stipulation," filed November 5, 2019, "for Removal of Action to State Court," by which the parties seek an order directing the above-titled action be "removed to Santa Cruz County Superior Court" (see Joint Stip. at 3:21). The parties have not cited any authority for such procedure, and, consequently, the Court declines to issue their proposed order. Nothing herein, however, is intended to preclude the parties from submitting some other agreement by which the case is heard in their preferred forum and under which their respective rights are preserved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
