Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06349/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06349-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1441 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN ILEEN BLUE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

a Georgia Limited Liability Company;

NATIONAL DATA RETRIEVAL, LLC, a

Georgia Limited Liability Company;

RICHARD W. ANDERSON, JR., an

individual; RICHARD W. ANDERSON, III,

an individual; ERIK ANDERSON, an

individual; and DOES 5-10, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-06349 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2007, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ pleadings and, thus, does not wish to hear the

parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal

authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

Case 3:06-cv-06349-JSW Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 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

The parties each shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

1. What authority within the Ninth Circuit recognizes an equitable exception to the oneyear time limit for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)? 

2. Assuming that there is authority within the Ninth Circuit which recognizes an exception

to the statutory time limit for removal, how do Plaintiff’s actions rise to the level of bad

faith forum manipulation such that the Court should extend the statutorily-imposed time

limit?

3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: February 13, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06349-JSW Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 2