Legal Opinion
Columbus Bingham IV v. Padres, L.P.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided November 21, 2025No. 3:25-cv-01199Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 COLUMBUS BINGHAM IV, Case No. 25-cv-01199-BAS-DEB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND TO 16 PADRES, L.P., STATE COURT (ECF No. 7); 17 Defendant. AND 18 (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 19 MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF No. 4) 20 21 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff Columbus Bingham IV’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 22 to remand the action to state court (ECF No. 7) and Defendant Padres, L.P.’s (“Defendant”) 23 motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 4). For the reasons below, the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.