Legal Opinion
Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided February 10, 1998No. C97-20917 EAIPublishedCited by 88 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
INFANTE, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Conrad Associates moves to remand on the grounds that the amount in controversy in this diversity case does not exceed $75,000. ■ Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company for improperly removing this case. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs motion to remand is GRANTED and plaintiffs motion for sanctions is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
-On February 1, 1983, Conrad Associates (“Conrad”) entered into a contract to design a two-story parking…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- David Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Barbara Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Company, Farrar Oilfield Service and Equipment Co., and Tri-State Oil Services, Inc., Tri-State Oil Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- De Aguilar v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by88 opinions
- Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2002
- Mireles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
- Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2009
- Simmons v. PCR TECHNOLOGYDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2002
- Patel v. Nike Retail Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.