UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION
May 27, 2010
DENNIS J. NASRAWI, MICHAEL R. O'NEAL, AND RHONDA BIESEMEIR, PLAINTIFF,
BUCK CONSULTANTS, LLC AND HAROLD LOEB, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND (Doc. 17) AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' REPLY (Doc. 29)
The motion of Plaintiffs Dennis J. Nasrawi, Michael R. O'Neal, and Rhonda Biesemeir (collectively "Plaintiffs") to remand the action to state court (docket # 17), and the motion of Defendants Buck Consultants, LLC ("Buck") and Harold Loeb ("Loeb") (collectively "Defendants") to strike Plaintiffs' untimely remand reply brief came on regularly for hearing on May 10, 2010 in Department 3 of this Court, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger presiding. Michael A. Conger, Esq., of the Law Office of Michael A. Conger appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Michael N. Westheimer, Esq., of Baker & McKenzie LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants.
After considering the parties' papers and all the matters in the Court's record, and having heard oral argument from the parties, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision Re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand (Doc. 17) and Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. 34) ("Memorandum Decision") on May 12, 2010 (docket # 34), setting forth the Court's rulings on both motions and the basis for the Court's rulings. In accordance with the Memorandum Decision, and good cause appearing, the Court determines as follows:
(1) The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of establishing that Loeb is a "sham defendant" whose presence in the action does not bar removal and exists for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of establishing that complete diversity of citizenship exists as between Plaintiffs and Buck, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the action was timely removed to this Court. The Court has diversity jurisdiction of this action. Plaintiffs' motion for remand (docket # 17) is DENIED.
(2) The issue of Plaintiffs' untimely filing of their remand reply brief was resolved during oral argument on May 10, 2010. Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' reply (docket # 29) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.