Legal Opinion

Palma v. Prudential Insurance

District Court, N.D. California

Decided May 25, 2011No. 11-00957 CWPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Miguel A. Palma moves to remand this removed action to state court and requests attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendant Prudential Insurance Company opposes the motion. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court grants Plaintiffs motion for remand and denies Plaintiffs request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this case in state court alleging that Prudential wrongfully denied benefits owing to him under his long…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Frank D. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., an Indiana CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  2. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  5. Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN DRUG COMPANY; William Dement, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rader v. Sun Life Assurance Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2013
  2. Ellena v. Department of InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Graybill-Bundgard v. Standard InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API