Filed: Apr. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2016
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . WHEREAS on March 31, 2016, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD removed this action from the Superior Court of California to the U.S. District Court based on the diversity of the parties. WHEREAS in support of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD relied upon a
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . WHEREAS on March 31, 2016, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD removed this action from the Superior Court of California to the U.S. District Court based on the diversity of the parties. WHEREAS in support of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD relied upon a ..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND ACTION BACK TO STATE COURT
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
WHEREAS on March 31, 2016, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD removed this action from the Superior Court of California to the U.S. District Court based on the diversity of the parties.
WHEREAS in support of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD relied upon a Response to a Statement of Damages served by Plaintiffs on March 21, 2016 to establish that amount in controversy was over $75,000.00. This Response to Defendant's Statement of Damages was the first Court-filed, or otherwise admissible evidence, suggesting that the amount in controversy was over $75,000.00.
WHEREAS shortly after Defendant filed its Notice of Removal, Plaintiffs' Counsel forwarded correspondence citing to multiple authorities standing for the proposition that the amount in controversy was established in certain correspondence authored by Plaintiffs in anticipation of mediation in November of 2015. As a result, it is Plaintiffs' contention that the deadline for removal had lapsed.
WHEREAS upon consideration of the legal authorities submitted by Plaintiffs, Defendant DRIFTWOOD HAYWARD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC dba DRIFTWOOD HEALTHCARE CENTER — HAYWARD is now of the opinion that its removal of the instant action was untimely, and as a result, this Court should remand the action back to the Superior Court of California without the need for a formal Motion for Remand to be filed by Plaintiffs.
THEREFORE, it is stipulated between the parties as follows:
1. Without the need for formal law and motion, this action should be remanded back to the Superior Court of California as the removal of this action was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3).
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
IT IS SO ORDERED:
1. Without the need for formal law and motion, this Court hereby remands the action back to the Superior Court of California as the removal of this action was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3).
