Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00653/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00653-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORRECTIONS USA, a

California Mutual Benefit

Corporation; MIKE JIMENEZ,

as a Representative of the

Members of Corrections USA,

a California Mutual Benefit

Corporation,

NO. CIV. S-07-653 LKK/EFB 

Plaintiffs,

v.

O R D E R

BRIAN DAWE, RICHARD LOUD;

GARY HARKINS; and DOES 1-100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

The court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ proposed orders denying

defendant Harkin and defendant Dawe’s motions to quash service of

summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. On May 1, 2007,

plaintiffs were ordered to file a supplemental brief that set forth

the legal basis for their proposed orders. The court has reviewed

the supplemental brief and for the reasons discussed herein, the

court declines to adopt the proposed orders. 

This case was removed to federal court on April 7, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00653-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/22/07 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

2

Since the case was removed, neither defendant Harkin nor Dawe have

filed motions to quash. Defendants Dawe and Harkins did, however,

file motions to quash in state court and these motions were denied

by the state court prior to removal. Plaintiffs’ supplemental

brief fails to set forth the legal grounds which would permit this

court to adopt a state court’s order denying the motions to quash,

both of which were filed and ruled upon prior to removal. 

Plaintiffs are correct that as a general matter, “one judge

should not overrule the prior decisions of another sitting in the

same case because of the principles of comity and uniformity

[which] ... preserve the orderly functioning of the judicial

process.” Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 530

(9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, it is well established that a “federal

court takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats

everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken

place in federal court.” Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783, 785

(9th Cir. 1963)

The problem with plaintiffs’ request is that defendants have

not filed motions to quash in this court. Were defendants to file

such a motion, the court would seriously consider the question of

whether it is bound by the state court’s ruling. However, as

the case stands now, the court cannot deny motions that have not

been filed. Plaintiffs fail to cite to any legal authority which

would allow this court to rule on a motion that was previously

filed and ruled on in state court. Accordingly, the court declines

to adopt the two proposed orders submitted by plaintiffs. 

Case 2:07-cv-00653-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/22/07 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 22, 2007.

 

Case 2:07-cv-00653-LKK -EFB Document 24 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3