Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04025/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-04025-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

27

28

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIO FEDERICI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JESSE MONROY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-4025 PVT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

PLAINTIFF FEDERICI’S CASE

SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED AND

REMANDED TO STATE COURT

During a hearing on January 12, 2010, Plaintiffs’ counsel brought to the court’s attention the

fact that his elderly client had obtained a preferential trial date while the case was pending in state

court. Based on Plaintiff Federici’s age and potential prejudice that further delay will cause him,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than January 22, 2010, any party who objects to the

claims between Plaintiffs and Defendants being severed and remanded to state court shall file a brief

showing cause, if any, why those claims should not be so severed and remanded to state court. See,

FED.R.CIV.PRO 42(b) (“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court

may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or

third-party claims.”); see also, e.g., Milne Employees Ass’n v. Sun Carriers, 960 F.2d 1401, n. 1 (9

th

Cir. 1991) (noting that claims which were not preempted by federal law had been severed and

remanded to state court).

Dated: 1/13/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:09-cv-04025-PVT Document 33 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 1