Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SILVERWOOD ESTATES DEV. L.P. v. ADCOCK

April 10, 1991

SILVERWOOD ESTATES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT R. ADCOCK and PATRICIA ADCOCK, individuals; ALISAL WATER CORPORATION, dba ALCO WATER SERVICE, Defendants


William A. Ingram, United States District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: INGRAM

On February 4, 1991 plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court on the grounds of improper removal was submitted without oral argument. Defendants' 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for more definite statement was also submitted on that date.

 Upon consideration of the papers submitted on these motions the court, for the reasons detailed below, hereby makes the following order: plaintiff's motion to REMAND is GRANTED. In light of this the court declines to rule on the motion to dismiss because it no longer retains jurisdiction over the matter and because it believes that the state court is the better forum for adjudicating issues of the sufficiency of state law claims.

 Since the court finds that all the claims arise out of the same series of events it declines to retain jurisdiction over the federal RICO claim.

 Facts

 Plaintiff Silverwood is a real estate development partnership constructing a housing development in Monterey County. As part of this construction Silverwood was required to construct a water utility system to supply the development. Defendant Alisal Water Corp., doing business as Alco Water Service and owned by Robert and Patricia Adcock, is the public water utility for the area in which the development is located.

 During the course of a series of disputes between plaintiff and defendants regarding this construction project plaintiff informed defendants that it had decided to sue them. In an attempt to avoid litigation by resolving the dispute in some other way, defendants asked plaintiff to prepare a draft complaint for their review.

 On August 17, 1990 plaintiff filed a complaint in the superior court for Monterey County and mailed a copy of that complaint to defendants' attorney. On September 6, 1990 defendants informed plaintiff that they had reviewed the complaint and requested an itemized statement of damages. This statement was sent to defendants on September 14, 1990. On this date plaintiff also requested that defendants formally acknowledge service.

 On September 24 defendants reported that they had tendered the complaint to their insurance carrier.

 On October 9, 1990 attorneys for defendants signed the form Acknowledgment and Receipt of Complaint and Summons.

 On November 5, 1990 defendants filed and served their Notice of Removal.

 Discussion

 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.