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.

Janice Vasquez v. Arvato Digital Services

June 27, 2011

JANICE VASQUEZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARVATO DIGITAL SERVICES, LLC, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

ORDER

Re: Plaintiff Janice Vasquez's Motion for Order Remanding Case to State Court [15]

On June 14, 2011, Plaintiff Janice Vasquez's Motion for Order Remanding Case to State Court came on for regular calendar before this Court [15]. The Court, having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to this Motion and having considered all arguments presented to the Court, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:

The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Order Remanding Case to State Court.

I. Background

Plaintiff Janice Vasquez (hereinafter, "Plaintiff")filed a Complaint on February 22, 2011 in Los Angeles Superior Court against Defendant Arvato Digital Services, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, (hereinafter, "Defendant"). Plaintiff alleged in her Complaint claims against Defendant for disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant states that it was served with the Summons and Complaint on March 3, 2011. [Def.'s Notice of Removal, ¶ 1.] On April 4, 2011, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal*fn1 of this Civil Action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction [1].

II. Legal Standards

1. Judicial Notice

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court may take judicial notice of adjudicative facts only. "A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either 1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or 2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court must take judicial notice if a party requests it and supplies the court with the requisite information.

Fed. R. Evid. 201(d).

2. Remand

In deciding whether to remand a case, this Court must determine whether the case was properly removed to this Court. The right to remove a case to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which in relevant part states that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants...." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have diversity jurisdiction over all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The Court may remand a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or defects in removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1447(c). The defendant has the burden of proving that removal is proper and that all of the prerequisites are satisfied. If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a ...


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.