Legal Opinion
Tetsubayashi v. Indeed, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided September 5, 2025No. 3:25-cv-05049Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DEDE TETSUBAYASHI, 10 Case No. 25-cv-05049-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 REMAND AND DENYING AS MOOT INDEED, INC., et al., MOTION TO COMPEL 13 ARBITRATION Defendants. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration depend in 17 the first instance on jurisdiction. Since Plaintiff’s amended complaint properly adds claims against 18 a new defendant who destroys diversity jurisdiction, jurisdiction is lacking. The Motion to 19 Remand is granted and the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Eminence Capital, Llc, and Jay Spechler v. Aspeon, Inc. Richard P. StackCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Dcd Programs, Ltd. v. Michael W. Leighton, Hill, Farrer & BurrillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Christopher Owens Cynthia Hutchins,plaintiffs-Appellants v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,inc., a California Corporation,defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN DRUG COMPANY; William Dement, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.