UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 27, 2011
WAL-MART STORES, INC., AND DOES 1- 100, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND MOOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF APRIL 25, 2011 (Document 107)
On January 17, 2011, Plaintiff Zane Hardin filed a Motion to Remand this matter to state court. (Doc. 107.) The motion was premised on the fact that Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") named an additional defendant, Wal-Mart employee Gregory Cox, and that diversity was destroyed because Cox was a resident of California. Plaintiff asserted therefore that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 107 at 2.) The motion was to be heard before the undersigned on April 15, 2011. (Doc. 110.)
On January 19, 2011, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss a number of causes of action in the TAC; Defendant also sought a more definite statement as to other causes of action, and sought to strike other portions of the TAC. (Doc. 111.) One of the grounds upon which the motion to dismiss was based involved Plaintiff's naming of Cox as a defendant in the TAC. (Doc. 111 at 14-19.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant's motion on February 21, 2011. (Doc. 117.) Defendant filed its reply on March 7, 2011. (Doc. 119.) Thereafter, on March 9, 2011, Chief District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order vacating the hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss, and taking the matter under submission. (Doc. 121.)
On March 29, 2011, this Court issued a signed minute order holding Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in abeyance pending Judge Ishii's decision on Defendant's motion to dismiss. As the Court explained, it would "not address Plaintiff's motion to remand wherein Plaintiff expressly seeks remand on the basis of a lack of diversity jurisdiction." (See Doc. 122.)
On April 24, 2011, Judge Ishii issued his Order Re: Motion to Dismiss wherein "[a]ll claims against Defendant Gregory Cox [were] DISMISSED." (Doc. 123 at 18; see also Doc. 123 at 5-6.) Moreover, Plaintiff was "not granted leave to amend." (Doc. 123 at 18.)
Accordingly, the hearing set for July 15, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10 is VACATED and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.