Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03592-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTAGIO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3592 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND, GRANTING MOTION TO

TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS, INC., STRIKE, DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS, AND VACATING DEFAULT

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motions to remand the action, and to strike and/or dismiss defendant’s

counterclaims, as well as counterdefendants’ motions to remand, and strike and/or dismiss

the counterclaims, came on for hearing before this court on September 12, 2007. Plaintiff,

Intagio Corporation (“Intagio”), appeared through its counsel, Russell I. Glazer. Defendant,

Tiger Oak Publications, Inc. (“Tiger Oak”), appeared through its counsel, James M.

Dombroski. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and

the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff

and counterdefendants’ motions to remand, GRANTS plaintiff’s and counterdefendants’

motion to strike defendants’ counterclaims, and DENIES as MOOT plaintiff’s and

counterdefendants’ motions to dismiss the counterclaims, for the reasons stated at the

hearing, and summarized as follows. 

1. Plaintiff’s and counterdefendants’ motion to remand the action for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED. Defendant’s Notice of Removal clearly establishes a

basis for finding that the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied, and plaintiff has

failed to controvert the existence of diversity jurisdiction with any evidence of its own. 

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 154 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Moreover, to the extent defendant’s First Amended Answer and Counterclaim appear to

deny the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, defense counsel satisfactorily explained at

the hearing on this matter that such denial was made with the sole purpose of preserving

defendant’s objections with respect to the fundamental arbitrability of the instant action. 

2. Plaintiff’s and counterdefendants’ motions to strike defendant’s counterclaims

are hereby GRANTED. Defendant’s opposition to the underlying Petition to Compel

Arbitration, filed on July 12, 2006, constituted defendant’s original responsive pleading, as

indicated by defendant’s detailed “factual response” therein setting forth the grounds for the

defenses and counterclaims asserted by defendant in its July 2, 2007 First Amended

Answer and Counterclaim. Accordingly, defendant’s First Amended Answer and

Counterclaim is to be construed, as its title indicates, as a first amended pleading. As

such, and in view of the court’s scheduling order granting the parties until July 2, 2007 to

seek leave to amend their pleadings, defendant’s amended answer and counterclaims are

untimely, and violate Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13, 14, and 15. Since plaintiff’s and

counterdefendants’ motions to strike target only defendant’s counterclaims, however, it is

the counterclaims that are hereby STRICKEN, with prejudice, and defendant’s answer is

permitted to stand as pled. 

3. Plaintiff’s and counterdefendants’ motions to dismiss defendant’s

counterclaims are hereby DENIED as MOOT, in view of the court’s order striking the

counterclaims. 

Additionally, having now considered the parties’ supplemental briefing on the

question whether the August 16, 2007 entry of default as to counterdefendant Joseph

DiMarino is valid in view of the court’s ruling herein, the court hereby VACATES the entry of

default as to Mr. DiMarino. Defendant’s counterclaims against him are stricken in the

interest of justice, given the invalidity of those counterclaims (as stated above), and Mr. 

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 154 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

DiMarino’s bankruptcy status. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03592-PJH Document 154 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3