Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. et al
| Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. |
| Nautilus, Inc. and DOES |
| 3:2009cv00744 |
| April 10, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Contract: Other Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Anthony J. Battaglia |
| Janis L. Sammartino |
| Plaintiff |
| Diversity |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
187
ORDER granting Defendant Nautilus, Inc's 177 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Final Judgment. Judgment is entered in favor of Dft Nautilus, Inc. and against Plaintiff as to all of Pla's claims, thereby resolving this case in its entirety. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 9/21/2012. (jah)
|
|
Filing
140
ORDER denying 129 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/30/12. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
113
ORDER: (1) Granting Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice; (2) denying 94 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting in part and denying in part 100 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 3/24/11. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
91
ORDER Setting Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs: per 90 Minute Order from Motion Hearing, the Court grants in part and denies in part 71 MOTION to Compel PMK Deposition filed by Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. Nautilus is hereby Ordered to pay $9,151.50 to SCSRA for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses by 8/20/10. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 7/29/10.(lmt)
|
|
Filing
11
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE REMAND TO STATE COURT by Judge Dale S. Fischer: Removal is on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Some of the parties are corporations. The notice of removal is deficien t because: [ X] the notice of removal does not state both the respective state of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). [ X ] the jurisdictional averment by defendant(s) is patently insufficient under 28 U.S.C. 7; 1332(c). Defendant(s) fail(s) to offer adequate facts to support the assertion that the principal place of business stated in the Notice of Removal is the corporate partys principal place of business. Defendant(s) must apply the total activities t est, which takes into account all aspects of the corporations business, including where its operations are located, where it supervises that business, and where it employs persons and conducts its business. Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F .2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 1990). This entails (1) determining the location of the majority of the corporations (a) employees, (b) tangible property, and (c)production activities, and (2) ascertaining where most of the its (a) income isearned, (b) purc hases are made, and (c) sales take place. Id. The alternate nerve center test may only be applied if defendant(s) establish(es) pursuant to the foregoing factors that no state contains a substantial predominance of the corporations business activitie s. Id. Under this test, a corporations principal place of business is where its executive and administrative functions are performed. Id. at 1092. Accordingly, the Court orders defendant to show cause in writing no later than February 23, 2009 why th is action should not be remanded for the reasons noted above. If defendant requires additional discovery to establish the citizenship of one or more plaintiffs or other defendants, defendant may request additional time to engage in jurisdictional dis covery, provided that such a request is madeon or before the above deadline. This deadline shall not extend the time for responding to any motion for remand filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff may submit a response in the same time period. Plaintiff must s ubmit a response within 30 days of the date of removal if the defects are procedural and plaintiffobjects and requests remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The parties are reminded that courtesy copies are to be delivered to Chambers. Failure of defendant to respond by the above date may result in the Court remanding this action to state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb) [Transferred from California Central on 4/13/2009.]
|
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 Southern 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.
