Filed: Mar. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. 20) and Defendant's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 22). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied. Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate because Wal-Mart did not consent to the removal of this case from state court. As stated in the response, the motion
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. 20) and Defendant's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 22). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied. Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate because Wal-Mart did not consent to the removal of this case from state court. As stated in the response, the motion ..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. 20) and Defendant's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 22). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied.
Plaintiff argues that remand is appropriate because Wal-Mart did not consent to the removal of this case from state court. As stated in the response, the motion is untimely because any procedural defect in a removal shall be addressed in a motion to remand within thirty days after the filing of the notice of removal. Moreover, a review of the docket reveals that, in fact, Wal-Mart joined and consented to the notice of removal. Indeed, the notice of removal attaches Wal-Mart's consent at Exhibit E. See (Dkt. 1, Ex. E). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied and Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within seven (7) days as to why sanctions should not be entered against her for filing a baseless motion.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. 20) is DENIED.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause in writing within seven (7) days of this Order as to why sanctions should not be entered against her for filing a baseless motion.
DONE and ORDERED.
