Filed: Mar. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Lula J. Sweis ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Boston Market Corporation (erroneously sued herein as Boston Market Corporation dba Boston Market-Roseville) ("Defendant") (herein, collectively, "the Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: STIPULATION: 1. On June 23, 2016, Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of California
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Lula J. Sweis ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Boston Market Corporation (erroneously sued herein as Boston Market Corporation dba Boston Market-Roseville) ("Defendant") (herein, collectively, "the Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: STIPULATION: 1. On June 23, 2016, Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of California i..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REMAND CASE TO PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Lula J. Sweis ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Boston Market Corporation (erroneously sued herein as Boston Market Corporation dba Boston Market-Roseville) ("Defendant") (herein, collectively, "the Parties"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
STIPULATION:
1. On June 23, 2016, Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Placer, titled Lula Sweis v. Boston Market Corporation dba Boston Market — Roseville (Placer County Superior Court Case No. SCV0037976) ("the Action").
2. On or about September 16, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal of the Action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, on the grounds that this matter was understood to be a civil action between citizens of different states, with an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.00, exclusive interests and costs.
3. Defendant has discovered the identities of indispensable third-parties with the legal responsibility of managing, operating, controlling and/or indemnifying for damages incurred in the parking lot where plaintiff's accident occurred.
4. Specifically, Defendant has identified the following indispensable third parties:
a. Ethan Conrad Properties, which, on information and belief, is a California Corporation.
b. Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., which, on information and belief, is a California Corporation.
c. Realty Income Properties, Inc., which, on information and belief, is a Maryland Corporation, doing business in California.
d. Other indispensable non-diverse third-parties, the identities of which are currently unknown to the Parties.
5. Joinder of the aforementioned indispensable third-parties will destroy diversity of citizenship in this Action, and eliminate this Court's Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332.
6. THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate that this action should immediately be remanded to Placer County Superior Court.
7. The Parties further stipulate that Defendant shall be permitted to file a Cross-Complaint against the indispensable third-parties without leave of court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 428.10, et seq.
8. Each Party shall bear his/her/its own attorney's fees and costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of this Action pursuant to this Stipulation and Order.
9. The Stipulation moots all pending deadlines and hearings before this Court, and all deadlines and hearings in this case should be taken off the Court's calendar.
ORDER
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (ECF No. 12), IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. This action is REMANDED to the Placer County Superior Court.
2. Each Party shall bear his/her/its own attorney's fees and costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of this Action.
3. The Stipulation moots all pending deadlines and hearings before this Court, and all deadlines and hearings in this case are VACATED.
4. Defendant shall be permitted to file a Cross-Complaint against the indispensable third-parties pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 428.10, et seq.
5. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
