Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02061/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02061-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rhonda Biesemeir
Plaintiff
Buck Consultants, LLC
Defendant
Harold Loeb
Defendant
Dennis J. Nasrawi
Plaintiff
Michael R. O'Neal
Plaintiff

Document Text:

Baker & McKenzie LLP

Palo Alto

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

1

Case No. 1:09-cv-02061-OWW-GSA 

ORDER

Michael N. Westheimer, State Bar No. 178938

 E-mail: Michael.Westheimer@bakernet.com

Benjamin C. Ho, State Bar No. 209377

 E-mail: Benjamin.C.Ho@bakernet.com

BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP

660 Hansen Way

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1044

Telephone: +1 650 856 2400

Facsimile: +1 650 856 9299

Attorneys for Defendants

BUCK CONSULTANTS, LLC and HAROLD LOEB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DENNIS J. NASRAWI, MICHAEL R. 

O'NEAL, and RHONDA BIESEMEIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUCK CONSULTANTS, LLC and HAROLD 

LOEB,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-02061-OWW-GSA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR REMAND (Doc. 17) AND 

DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY (Doc. 

29)

The motion of Plaintiffs Dennis J. Nasrawi, Michael R. O'Neal, and Rhonda Biesemeir 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) to remand the action to state court (docket # 17), and the motion of 

Defendants Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”) and Harold Loeb (“Loeb”) (collectively “Defendants”) 

to strike Plaintiffs’ untimely remand reply brief came on regularly for hearing on May 10, 2010 in 

Department 3 of this Court, the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger presiding. Michael A. Conger, Esq., 

of the Law Office of Michael A. Conger appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Michael N. Westheimer, 

Esq., of Baker & McKenzie LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants.

After considering the parties’ papers and all the matters in the Court’s record, and having 

heard oral argument from the parties, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision Re: Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Remand (Doc. 17) and Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply (Doc. 34) 

(“Memorandum Decision”) on May 12, 2010 (docket # 34), setting forth the Court’s rulings on 

Case 1:09-cv-02061-OWW -GSA Document 37 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
Baker & McKenzie LLP

Palo Alto

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

Case No. 1:09-cv-02061-OWW-GSA 

ORDER

both motions and the basis for the Court’s rulings. In accordance with the Memorandum Decision, 

and good cause appearing, the Court determines as follows:

(1) The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of establishing that Loeb is a 

“sham defendant” whose presence in the action does not bar removal and exists for the purpose of 

defeating diversity jurisdiction. The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden of 

establishing that complete diversity of citizenship exists as between Plaintiffs and Buck, the amount 

in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the action was timely removed to this Court. The Court has 

diversity jurisdiction of this action. Plaintiffs’ motion for remand (docket # 17) is DENIED.

(2) The issue of Plaintiffs’ untimely filing of their remand reply brief was resolved 

during oral argument on May 10, 2010. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ reply (docket # 29) 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

emm0d64h

Case 1:09-cv-02061-OWW -GSA Document 37 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2