Case Name: Bernard BRANDCHAFT, Dr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-02-01
Citations: 841 F.2d 886
Docket Number: No. 87-6528
Parties: Bernard BRANDCHAFT, Dr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before TANG, FLETCHER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 841
Pages: 886–886

Head Matter:
Bernard BRANDCHAFT, Dr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.F. HUTTON & COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-6528.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 28, 1988.
Decided Feb. 1, 1988.
Before TANG, FLETCHER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
On July 2, 1987, this case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the time of removal, the complaint contained allegations against fictitious "Doe" defendants. On September 29, 1987, the district court struck the "Doe" allegations pursuant to C.D.Cal.R. 3.7.2.1 and dismissed the complaint as to defendant E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order on October 22, 1987.
On January 11, 1988, plaintiff moved to remand this case to state court pursuant to Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 832 F.2d 1080, 1083 n. 6 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc). The motion to remand is denied. Bryant does not require remand in cases where "Doe" defendants were stricken by the district court prior to the November 6, 1987 decision in Bryant.