Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01355/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc.
Defendant
Robert Kerr
Plaintiff
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Defendant
Vestas-American Wind Technology, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

29

30

CHRISTINA Y. MOROVATI, Bar No. 175718

KULUVA, ARMIJO & GARCIA

555 S. Flower Street

Suite 600

Los Angeles, California 90071

(213) 612-5335

(213) 612-5712 Facsimile

Attorneys for Defendant,

Everpower Wind Holdings Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT KERR, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

VESTAS-AMERICAN WIND TECHNOLOGY, 

INC.; VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS A/S; 

EVERPOWER WIND HOLDINGS, INC., AND 

DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

CASE NO: 1:15-cv-01355---JLT

[SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO.: S-1500-CV284801 DRL]

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO REMAND CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT, 

KERN COUNTY

(Doc. 8)

Plaintiff ROBERT KERR and Defendants VESTAS-AMERICAN WIND TECHNOLOGY, 

INC (“VESTAS”) and EVERPOWER WIND HOLDINGS, INC. (“EVERPOWER”) by and through 

their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

STIPULATION

1. WHEREAS counsel for EVERPOWER understood that VESTAS was incorporated in Oregon 

and had its principal place of business in Oregon based upon plaintiff’s complaint.

2. WHEREAS EVERPOWER removed this case to this Court on September 2, 2015 based upon 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 and its counsel’s mistaken understanding 

of VESTAS’ place of incorporation and principal place of business.

3. WHEREAS, the parties agree that VESTAS is a proper party to this action and a corporate 

Case 1:15-cv-01355-JLT Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

29

30

citizen of California for purposes of determining the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. Section 1332.

4. NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that the action should be remanded to the Superior 

Court, Kern County.

IT IS SO STIPULATED 

DATED: September 9, 2015 KULUVA, ARMIJO & GARCIA

By: _____________________________

CHRISTINA Y. MOROVATI

DATED: LAW OFFICE OF KASSANDRA MCQUILLEN

By: _____________________________

KASSANDRA MCQUILLEN

DATED: WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN 

By: _____________________________

GEORGE A. PISANO

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of the parties that the matter should be remanded to the Kern 

County Superior Court, the court ORDERS:

1. The stipulation of the parties is GRANTED:

2. The matter is REMANDED to the Kern County Superior Court;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01355-JLT Document 10 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2