Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01580/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

1

f 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS FLORES RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 06-cv-1580 OWW TAG

an individual,

 

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT

vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REMAND 

AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

HALL AMBULANCE, an unknown entity, (Docs. 4, 18)

JAMES RUSSELL TOLLISON, an

individual, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

This case involves the removal by a Texas law firm, Hennessy, Gardner & Barth, and its

affiliated attorneys, Bruce Jamison and Edward J. Hennessy (collectively, the “Texas

defendants”) of a state-court complaint filed by plaintiff Carlos Flores Rodriguez, a California

resident, alleging negligence against two California residents, and various violations against his

former attorneys, the Texas defendants, related to a retainer agreement that purportedly did not

comply with California law. Plaintiff Rodriguez moved to remand the action to the state court

and requested attorney’s fees. (Doc. 4). Defendants Hall Ambulance and James Russell Tollison

joined in the motion for remand. (Doc. 10). The motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

On February 9, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the Court grant the motion for remand and award Rodriguez $1,750.00 in

attorney’s fees. (Doc. 18). The Magistrate Judge found that the Texas defendants’ removal of,

Case 1:06-cv-01580-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 03/14/07 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

2

 and arguments opposing remand of, the state complaint lacked any objective basis in that this

Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction based on the lack of diversity of citizenship of the

parties.

 The Findings and Recommendations gave notice that the parties could file objections within

ten (10) court days. On February 26, 2007, the Texas defendants timely filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 19).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. The diverse defendants

ignore well established rules of joinder of claims and parties whereunder plaintiff sued alleged

tort feasors in California for injuries he suffered in Kern County California arising out of two

California parties’ alleged negligence. Plaintiff also sued Texas attorneys who entered into an 

allegedly unlawful contingency fee contract to represent plaintiff as attorneys in the same Kern

County negligence action. There is no fraudulent joinder as a viable Kern County California

personal injury action is before the state court, which involves parties who are citizens of the

same state, as well as Texas attorneys who claim and interest in the California state lawsuit.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations entered on February 9, 2007 (Doc. 18) are

 ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Motion for Remand (Doc. 4) is GRANTED, and this action is remanded to

the Kern County Superior Court; 

3. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED, and Defendants Bruce Jamison,

Edward J. Hennessy, and Hennessy, Gardner & Barth are ORDERED TO PAY Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:06-cv-01580-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 03/14/07 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

3

attorney, Brian Osborne, $1,750.00 in attorney’s fees forthwith; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the case in this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01580-OWW -TAG Document 20 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3