Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05334/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05334-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BIBEKANAND SATPATHY, dba

AMADORE ENTERTAINMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD.;

COVENANT AVIATION SECURITY, LLC;

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION; CITY AND COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO; THAI AIRWAYS

INTERNATIONAL, LTD. and DOES 1 to 50,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-5334 CW

ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE

REMANDED 

Defendant Thai International Airways, LTD. removed this case

to federal court on December 16, 2004, based on Defendant's status

as a "foreign state" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1603 and the

court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 and 1441(d). 

On February 10, 2005, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims

Case 4:04-cv-05334-CW Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 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

against Defendant Transportation Security Administration and on

March 25, 2005, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against

Defendant City and County of San Francisco. 

On September 9, 2005, the Court granted a motion for summary

judgment submitted by Defendants Cathay Pacific Airways, LTD. and

Thai International Airways finding the rights and liabilities of

the parties are governed exclusively by the Warsaw Convention, 49

U.S.C. § 40104 and Plaintiff's claims were barred for failure to

give timely notice. Defendant Covenant Aviation Security, LLC did

not join the motion. 

All federal claims now having been resolved, the Court orders

the remaining parties to show cause why the Court should not

exercise its discretion to remand to State court. Any party

opposing remand shall file its opposition by September 23, 2005. 

If opposition is filed, any party favoring remand shall file a

reply by September 30, 2005. The matter will be decided on the

papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/13/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05334-CW Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2