HOLLINS v. CORDIS CORPORATION, C 16-06740 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170508669
Visitors: 10
Filed: May 05, 2017
Latest Update: May 05, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The parties previously informed the Court that defendant Cordis Corporation removed this action, "along with other cases asserting the claims of more than 200 plaintiffs, under the `mass action' provision of the Class Action Fairness Act"; that Judge Edward Chen had issued an order remanding many such cases; that Cordis had appealed that order; and that "[t]he same jurisdictional issues raised in this appeal are at issue in the above-capt
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The parties previously informed the Court that defendant Cordis Corporation removed this action, "along with other cases asserting the claims of more than 200 plaintiffs, under the `mass action' provision of the Class Action Fairness Act"; that Judge Edward Chen had issued an order remanding many such cases; that Cordis had appealed that order; and that "[t]he same jurisdictional issues raised in this appeal are at issue in the above-capti..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
The parties previously informed the Court that defendant Cordis Corporation removed this action, "along with other cases asserting the claims of more than 200 plaintiffs, under the `mass action' provision of the Class Action Fairness Act"; that Judge Edward Chen had issued an order remanding many such cases; that Cordis had appealed that order; and that "[t]he same jurisdictional issues raised in this appeal are at issue in the above-captioned matter" (Dkt. No. 15 at 2-3). Cordis recently filed notice that our court of appeals affirmed Judge Chen's order on April 14 and Cordis petitioned for rehearing en banc on April 28 (Dkt. No. 19).
By JUNE 1 AT NOON, Cordis shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be remanded for the same reasons set forth in Judge Chen's order affirmed by our court of appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
