Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01437-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRVING VERDUZCO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01437-LJO-BAM

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS

(DOC. 20)

On September 9, 2013, Defendant, the Ford Motor Company, through counsel Frank P. Kelly, of 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., filed a notice of removal of Superior Court of California for the County 

of Stanislaus Case No. 615207. Doc. 1. By a November 15, 2013 Order, this case was remanded to state 

court. Doc. 17 (“Remand Order”). The Remand Order followed extensive litigation in response to 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand, involving the expenditure of considerable judicial resources, including the 

issuance by the assigned Magistrate Judge of Findings and Recommendations (“F&Rs”), Doc. 15, as 

well as the necessity of reviewing and responding to Defendant’s objections thereto, Docs. 16 & 17. 

On December 4, 2013, this Court received a notice from the Stanislaus County Superior Court 

indicating that the state court never received notice of the removal. See Doc. 19. Although this Court 

lacks access to the complete paper record of the state court case, the online docket of Stanislaus County 

Superior Court No. 615207, Verduzco, I. v. Ford Motor Company, did not reflect the filing of a notice of 

removal.

On December 11, 2013, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions upon Defense 

Counsel based upon the state court’s notice and this Court’s belief that Defense counsel’s failure to file a

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 22 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 2
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

2

notice of removal with the state court evidenced bad faith intent to manipulate the judicial process. Doc. 

20. In response, Defense Counsel presented documentation demonstrating that he did indeed file a notice 

of removal with the state court and that the notice was routed to the state court judge assigned to the 

case. Doc. 21. Although it is still unclear why the state court sent the Clerk of this Court a notice 

indicating Stanislaus County Superior Court No. 615207 had not been removed, the Court is satisfied 

that Defense counsel has complied with the removal statute and has not sought to manipulate the judicial 

process. Therefore, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

b2e55c0d

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 22 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 2