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.

Anthony Jackson v. Metal Improvement Co. et al.

April 19, 2012

ANTHONY JACKSON
v.
METAL IMPROVEMENT CO. ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Jacqueline Nguyen

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable Jacqueline Nguyen

Chris Silva Not present N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present Not present

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND TO STATE COURT (In Chambers)

On March 1, 2012, this action was removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, the jurisdictional allegations appear to be defective for the reason opposite the box checked:

[ ] Removal is on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 but it appears that the claims may not "arise under" federal law.

[ ] Removal is on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on grounds of the artful pleading doctrine but the claims do not appear to be completely preempted. See, e.g., Beffa v. Bank of the West, 152 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 1998) ("The preemptive scope of EFAA described in § 4007 and the relevant portions of Regulation CC, 12 C.F.R. § 229.20, is quite narrow. Only state laws that establish different timing or disclosure requirements than EFAA or otherwise directly conflict with EFAA face preemption. Congress expressed no desire to preempt state laws or causes of action that supplement, rather than contradict, EFAA").

[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but all plaintiffs are not diverse from all defendants. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).

[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings set forth the residence, rather than the citizenship, of some of the parties. Diversity is based on citizenship.

[ ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but the pleadings fail to allege the citizenship of some of the parties.

[ X ] Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association is joined as a party. The Court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members. The citizenship of each of the entity's partners or members must therefore be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185 (1990); United Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U.S. 145 (1965); Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, No. 04-35671, ...


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.