Legal Opinion
Kirkbride v. Continental Casualty Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided February 6, 1989No. C-88-4400 JPVPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT AND CERTIFYING MATTER FOR APPEAL
VUKASIN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Cross-defendants 1 Kirkbride and Wong seek remand of this action and recovery of costs under Rule 11 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Cross-defendants FSLIC vigorously opposes remand.
In a previously published opinion, Kirk-bride v. Continental Casualty Co., 696 F.Supp. 496 (N.D.Cal.1988), this court held: 1) the original cross-complaint which provides the basis for FSLIC’s removal to this court did not clearly name the FSLIC as a party in its “corporate capacity” as required for removal…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Corcoran v. Ardra Insurance Company, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Braemoor AssociatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Conservator for Columbus Savings & Loan Association v. Frumenti Development Corporation, a California Corporation, Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Conservator for Columbus Savings & Loan Association v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and Frumenti Development Corporation, a California Corporation, Real Parties in Interest. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, as Conservator for Columbus Savings & Loan Association, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. Frumenti Development Corporation, a California Corporation, Defendants-RespondentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Kirkbride v. Continental Casualty Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1988
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kirkbride v. Continental Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Bruce Kirkbride v. Continental Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991