Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02544/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02544-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK” 

YEAGER (RET.), et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, PLC, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2544 KJM DAD PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs, General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager, Ret., and Victoria Yeager, his 

wife, are proceeding pro se in this case. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

 On December 16, 2014, the Yeagers filed a joint motion to remand this case to 

California Superior Court. ECF No. 13. The defendants opposed the motion, ECF No. 27, and 

the Yeagers filed a joint reply, ECF No. 29. On August 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed 

findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 

days after service of the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 43. The Yeagers filed joint 

objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 44, and the defendants filed a response, 

ECF No. 46. 

Case 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-DB Document 47 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

 In a related case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Yeager, et al., No. 13-007 (E.D. Cal. filed 

Jan. 2, 2013), also pending before the undersigned, the court recently held an evidentiary hearing 

on the question of General Yeager’s ability to proceed without counsel. See Minutes Sept. 14, 

2015, Case No. 13-007, ECF No. 218. The court has not yet issued an order on that question; 

however, the court concludes it may decide the question before it in this motion because the 

court’s order does not serve as a judgment on the merits of the parties’ dispute. Cf. Allen v. 

Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that in a non-habeas civil case, if an 

incompetent person is unrepresented, the court may not enter a judgment on the merits without 

complying with Rule 17(c)); Nutter v. Monongahela Power Co., 4 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 1993) 

(“[A] district court’s findings incident to an order of remand have no preclusive effect.” (citing, 

inter alia, Whitman v. Raley’s Inc., 886 F.2d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 1989))).

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds 

the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, and 

adopts them in full. The court writes separately here only to address two points raised in 

objection to the findings and recommendations. 

 First, the Yeagers argue, as they did in their motion, that the defendants owed them 

a fiduciary duty (1) to inform them that should a dispute arise, and should they later file an action 

in state court, federal law could potentially allow removal of the case to federal district court, and 

(2) not to remove the case to federal district court should adjudication in federal court be less 

favorable to the Yeagers. Other than general statements of an attorney’s fiduciary duty to his or 

her client, the Yeagers cite no authority to support these arguments, and the court is aware of 

none. 

 Second, the Yeagers argue public policy favors remand to state court. “[F]ederal 

courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise their jurisdiction except in those 

extraordinary circumstances ‘where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would 

clearly serve an important countervailing interest.’” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 203 

(1988) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 

Case 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-DB Document 47 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

(1976)). The Yeagers have pointed to no circumstances that require adjudication in state courts. 

Moreover, the defendants have a legitimate interest in this court’s jurisdiction. See Lively v. Wild 

Oats Markets, 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is intended 

to protect out-of-state defendants from possible prejudices in state court.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2015 (Dkt. No. 43) are 

adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s December 16, 2014 motion to remand (Dkt. No. 13) is denied; and 

 3. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of an order in the related case, 

No. 13-0007, on the question of General Yeager’s competency to proceed without representation. 

DATED: September 24, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02544-KJM-DB Document 47 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 3