Legal Opinion
Teitelbaum v. Soloski
District Court, C.D. California
Decided February 8, 1994No. CV 94-0013 AWTPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF REMAND
TASHIMA, District Judge.
This action was removed here by defendant Warren J. Soloski (“Soloski”) on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Because of substantial doubt as to the timeliness of removal, an order to show cause (“OSC”) was issued why this action should not be remanded to state court. At about the same time, plaintiff made a timely motion to remand the action to state court. One of the grounds of remand urged by plaintiff was that certain defendants had not timely joined in the notice of removal. 1 Both the OSC and motion have now been fully briefed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Northern Illinois Gas Company, an Illinois Corporation v. Airco Industrial Gases, a Division of Airco, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Billy Max Brown v. Demco, Inc. v. Employers Casualty Co., Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Transport Indemnity Co. v. Financial Trust Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1972
- Moore v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- People of State of Cal. v. Steelcase Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1992
3Cited by12 opinions
- Schwartz v. FHP International Corp.District Court, D. Arizona · 1996
- McAnally Enterprises, Inc. v. McAnallyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2000
- Gray v. New York Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1995
- In Re Pharmaceutical Ind. Aver. Whole. Price Lit.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2006
- United Computer Systems, Inc. v. AT & T Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.