Bebber v. Dignity Health, 1:19-cv-00264-DAD-EPG. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190719785
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (Doc. No. 9) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On May 21, 2019, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion to remand this action to Merced County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 9.) At the hearing, the court expressed concern regarding the timeliness of removal in light of the fact that this action has proceeded in state court for more than one year. Having reviewed the parties' briefing, the court concludes that neither party has adequately address
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING (Doc. No. 9) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . On May 21, 2019, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion to remand this action to Merced County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 9.) At the hearing, the court expressed concern regarding the timeliness of removal in light of the fact that this action has proceeded in state court for more than one year. Having reviewed the parties' briefing, the court concludes that neither party has adequately addresse..
More
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
(Doc. No. 9)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
On May 21, 2019, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's motion to remand this action to Merced County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 9.) At the hearing, the court expressed concern regarding the timeliness of removal in light of the fact that this action has proceeded in state court for more than one year. Having reviewed the parties' briefing, the court concludes that neither party has adequately addressed the issue of the timeliness of the removal. Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing to the court addressing the following questions:
1. Whether the decision in Curtis v. Irwin Industries, Inc., 913 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019) constitutes an "order or other paper" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) in light of the Ninth Circuit's holding that orders and other papers must be "part of the state court record." Peabody v. Maud Van Cortland Hill Schroll Tr., 892 F.2d 772,775 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Ruiz v. Carnival Corp., No. 11-23170-CIV, 2012 WL 626222, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2012) ("A subsequent court decision in an unrelated case does not normally constitute a basis for removal."); McCormick v. Excel Corp., 413 F.Supp.2d 967, 970 (E.D. Wis. 2006) ("As a general rule, a decision in an unrelated lawsuit is not an order or other paper within § 1446(b) and, therefore, does not trigger the thirty day period for filing a notice of removal. Rather, the words `an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper' are thought to refer only to documents in the same case, i.e., the case being removed."); Lozano v. GPE Controls, 859 F.Supp. 1036, 1038 (S.D. Tex. 1994) ("`Other paper' within the meaning of § 1446(b) refers to papers that are generated within the specific state proceeding which has been removed to federal court."); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3731 (Rev. 4th ed. 2019) ("[T]he publication of opinions by other courts dealing with subjects that potentially could affect a state-court suit's removability, and documents not generated within the state litigation generally are not recognized as `other papers,' that can start a 30-day removal period under Section 1446(b)."); and
2. If the decision in Curtis does not constitute an order or other paper, whether any other basis exists that would permit removal of this case. See Rea v. Michaels Stores Inc., 742 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 2014); Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013).
The parties are granted fourteen days from the date off service of this order in which to file briefing, which shall be limited to ten pages in length. Upon receipt of this cross-briefing, the motion will be re-submitted for decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
