Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04370/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO ACALA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAFEWAY SCAFFOLDING, 

 Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-4370 SC

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO REMAND

Plaintiff Eduardo Acala moves the Court to remand this action

to the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and

County of San Francisco. Defendant Safway Services, Inc.,

erroneously sued herein as Safeway Scaffolding, has not opposed

the motion.

Plaintiff and Defendant both agree that the Complaint filed

in Superior Court, as amended, includes a California citizen

corporation, M.A. Lindquist Co., as a defendant. See Memorandum

of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Remand ("Pl.'s

Mem.") at 2; Defendant's Non-Opposition to Motion for Remand at 3

("Def.'s Non-Opp.") They therefore also agree that the Court's

Case 3:06-cv-04370-SC Document 11 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is thereby

destroyed. See Pl.'s Mem. at 4; Def.'s Non-Opp. at 3.

The only point of contention between the parties is whether

Defendant's counsel improperly refused to stipulate to a remand at

some earlier point. Pl.'s Mem. at 2-3; Def.'s Non-Opp. at 2-3. 

Plaintiff has not yet made a motion for sanctions; rather,

Plaintiff's counsel has submitted a declaration in reply to

Defendant's Non-Opposition which vaguely requests the Court "to

retain jurisdiction of this matter so plaintiff can file a motion

for sanctions." Declaration of Plaintiff's Counsel William E.

Weiss in Reply to Defendant's Statement of Non-Opposition at 3. 

The Court declines the invitation. 

From the submissions of both parties, it appears that the

parties' failure to reach an agreement to stipulate to a remand

was the result of one part sloppiness, one part vacation

arrangements, and one part needless aggressiveness by the

attorneys. While it is unfortunate that resources of the Court

and the attorneys have been consumed as a result, there is no

basis for sanctioning either party or their respective counsel. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is

GRANTED, and Plaintiff's vague suggestion of sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04370-SC Document 11 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 2