Natalie Schultz v. BMW of North America, LLC
| Schultz Natalie and Natalie Schultz |
| BMW of North America, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive |
| 2:2017cv07666 |
| October 19, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W Fitzgerald |
| Alexander F MacKinnon |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 TRANSMITTAL of documents to Los Angeles County Superior Court. A certified copy of the order of remand and a copy of the docket sheet from this court was sent to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Case No.: BC676414. (jp) |
Filing 16
MINUTES (In Chambers): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: the Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. Local Rule 58-6. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)
|
| Filing 15 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Natalie Schultzto Brief (non-motion non-appeal) #13 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Complaint)(Anvar, Jessica) |
| Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant BMW of North America, LLC, re Brief (non-motion non-appeal) #13 Brief Re Assertion of Jurisdiction (Amount in Controversy) served on 12-20-2017. (Tallent, Erin) |
| Filing 13 BRIEF filed by Defendant BMW of North America, LLC. Brief Re Assertion of Jurisdiction (Amount in Controversy) (Attachments: #1 Declaration Erin Tallent, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C)(Tallent, Erin) |
| Filing 12 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: For the reasons stated on the record, the Court orders defendant to file a brief in support of its assertion of jurisdiction by 12/20/2017. Plaintiff's response brief is due 1/5/2018. The Court anticipates a trial date of 11/6/2018, and discovery cutoff 7/2/2018. An order with the trial and pretrial dates will separately issue, following the jurisdiction ruling. SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (cw) |
|
Filing 11
TEXT ENTRY ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: The Court has reviewed Defendant's Notice of Removal and the pertinent cases cited therein, and it is skeptical that diversity jurisdiction exists. Specifically, the Court is skeptical that Plaintiff's anticipated attorneys' fees are properly included in the amount in controversy. District courts in the Ninth Circuit have discretion to consider attorneys' fees in determining the amount in controversy where, as with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, they are statutorily mandated or authorized. See Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 1998) ("We hold that where an underlying statute authorizes an award of attorneys' fees, either with mandatory or discretionary language, such fees may be included in the amount in controversy."). However, district courts are split on whether or not anticipated fees (rather than fees that have already been incurred prior to removal) are properly included. Compare Brady v. Mercedes-Bens USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (agreeing with Tenth Circuit view that "a reasonable estimate of fees likely to be recovered may be used in calculating the amount in controversy") with Reames v. AB Car Rental Services, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Or. 2012) (disagreeing with Brady and the Tenth Circuit, and adopting Seventh Circuit view that anticipated fees should not be included: "It appears that a nascent consensus may be emerging among the district courts of the Ninth Circuit that the split between the [Tenth Circuit] and [Seventh Circuit] lines of cases may best be resolved by adoption of the [Seventh Circuit] reasoning that attorney fees anticipated but unaccrued at the time of removal are not properly in controversy for jurisdictional purposes") (citations omitted). Absent controlling Ninth Circuit precedent mandating consideration of Plaintiff's potential attorneys' fees, the Court is disinclined to do so. Counsel for both parties should be prepared to address the issue of whether or not this case is properly in federal court at the December 11, 2017 scheduling conference. Counsel are advised that if convincing arguments in favor of exercising diversity jurisdiction are not presented, the Court may remand this action to the Superior Court on the record during the scheduling conference. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (cw) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Report #9 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Joint Report Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lom) |
| Filing 9 JOINT REPORT of Joint Rule 26(f) Report filed by Defendant BMW of North America, LLC. (Tallent, Erin) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: A Scheduling Conference is set for 12/11/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Joint Rule 26(f) Meeting Report is due 11/27/2017. IT IS SO ORDERED. (cw)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jp) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald and Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon. (jp) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF ORIGINAL FILE ANSWER to Complaint, with JURY DEMAND filed by defendant BMW of North America, LLC. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 10/18/2017 SUBMITTED ATTACHMENT NO. 3 OF EXHIBIT B TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ). (jp) |
| CONFORMED COPY OF ORIGINAL FILED COMPLAINT against defendants BMW of North America, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive. Jury Demand, filed by Plaintiff Natalie Schultz. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 9/19/2017 SUBMITTED ATTACHMENT NO. 2 OF EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL #1 ). (jp) |
| Filing 5 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Defendant BMW of North America, LLC, re Jury Demand #4 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) #2 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties #3 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 served on October 19, 2017. (Tallent, Erin) |
| Filing 4 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by defendant BMW of North America, LLC.. (Tallent, Erin) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by defendant BMW of North America, LLC, identifying BMW (US) Holding Corp.. (Tallent, Erin) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendant BMW of North America, LLC. (Tallent, Erin) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles Superior Court, case number BC676414 Receipt No: 0973-20691501 - Fee: $400, filed by defendant BMW of North America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B) (Attorney Erin Elizabeth Tallent added to party BMW of North America, LLC(pty:dft))(Tallent, Erin) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
