Legal Opinion
Capps v. WEFLEN
District Court, D. North Dakota
Decided March 4, 2010No. 3:10-mj-00003Published
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND
DANIEL L. HOVLAND, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Remand” filed on January 28, 2010. See Docket No. 3. The plaintiffs seek to remand this matter back to the North Dakota state district court. The basis for the remand is 1) diversity of jurisdiction has not been established by the removing party; 2) consent for removal among all of the defendants has not been established; and 3) the “forum defendant rule” mandates a remand. For the reasons outlined below, the motion for remand is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- In Re Business Men's Assurance Company of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Green v. Ameritrade, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
- Irene Hurt v. Dow Chemical Company Rose Exterminator CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
- Paul T. Krispin, Jr. v. The May Department Stores Company, Scott Matheis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The May Department Stores Company, Doing Business as Famous-Barr Co., Paul T. Krispin, Jr. v. The May Department Stores CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.