Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Ruben Moncada, et al v. Petroleum Ge-Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 16, 2011

RUBEN MONCADA, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PETROLEUM GE-SERVICES, A NORWEGIAN COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

ORDER ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND AND ORDER REMANDING MATTER, and ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. Nos. 5, 18, 33)

This class action was removed by Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) on August 12, 2011. On August 18, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. See Court's Docket Doc. No. 5. On September 16, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. See id. at Doc. No. 18. On September 30, 2011, by minute order, the motion to remand was reset before Magistrate Judge Thurston. See id. at Doc. No. 21.

On October 25, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. The Findings and Recommendation recommend granting Plaintiffs' motion to remand due to Defendants' failure to adequately establish the $5 million amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). See Court's Docket Doc. No. 33. That is, the Magistrate Judge concluded that there was no jurisdiction over this matter. See id. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were due on November 8, 2011. However, no party has filed objections.

The Court has conducted a review of the case in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. Defendants have not adequately met the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and thus, have failed to establish this Court's jurisdiction. In such a circumstance, the Court is obligated to remand this matter to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 25, 2011 (Doc. No. 33) is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiffs' motion to remand (Doc. No. 18) is GRANTED; 3. This matter is REMANDED forthwith to the Kern County Superior Court, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c);

4. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED as moot; and

5. Upon remanding this matter, the Clerk shall CLOSE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20111116

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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