FLURY v. CHEX SYSTEM, INC., CV13-01284-PHX-DGC. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20130820764
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this case to State court. Doc 10. The motion is fully briefed. Doc. 11, 12. No party has requested oral arguments. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. After a notice of removal has been filed with this Court, defendants are required to "give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court." 28 U.S.C. 1446(d). Plaintiff argue
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this case to State court. Doc 10. The motion is fully briefed. Doc. 11, 12. No party has requested oral arguments. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. After a notice of removal has been filed with this Court, defendants are required to "give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court." 28 U.S.C. 1446(d). Plaintiff argues..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this case to State court. Doc 10. The motion is fully briefed. Doc. 11, 12. No party has requested oral arguments. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
After a notice of removal has been filed with this Court, defendants are required to "give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Plaintiff argues that Defendant did not properly notify the South Mountain Justice Court or the Encanto Justice Court of the removal because the Notice of Removal (Doc 1) is not time-stamped by either State court. Doc. 10 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that the Encanto Justice Court's docket shows that the State courts are unaware of removal. Id. at 2-5.
Defendant has provided stamped versions of the notice of removal in the response brief (Doc. 11-1 at 4 and 11), along with an order from the Encanto Justice Court confirming notice of the transfer. Id. at 19. The State courts were properly notified as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand (Doc. 10) is denied.
Source: Leagle
