Executive Staffing Solutions, Ltd v. CareCentrix, Inc.
| Executive Staffing Solutions, Ltd |
| CareCentrix, Inc. |
| 3:2021cv01290 |
| September 28, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 26, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford. (Fanelle, N.) |
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 8
ORDER OF REMAND. The Court has reviewed ECF No. #7 Defendant's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. With the agreement of the Plaintiff and upon stipulation of the Defendant, the Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this matter to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford and to close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/15/2021. (Banker, Joshua)
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO 6 Order,,,,,,. (Rollins, James) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. In Defendant's Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, Defendant alleges that this Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1332(a), diversity jurisdiction. However, Defendant also acknowledges that its principal place of business is Connecticut, making Defendant a Connecticut citizen for diversity and removal purposes. See 28 U.S.C s 1332(c)(1). And 28 U.S.C. s 1441(b) provides that "A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." This is the so-called forum defendant rule. See Gibbons v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 919 F.3d 699, 705 (2d Cir. 2019). Further, the Defendant acknowledges that it received service of the complaint in this matter on August 29, 2021, rendering the statute applicable. Id. (explaining the forum defendant rule and the ability of even home-state defendants to remove an action on the basis of diversity if the defendant has not yet been served).Accordingly, on or before October 15, 2021, Defendant shall file a brief demonstrating why this case should not be remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford. Failure to file a brief may result in remand without further notice from the Court. Plaintiff may respond on or before October 21, 2021. So Ordered. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 9/29/2021. (Banker, Joshua)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #4 Standing Protective Order, #3 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Notice of Removal, filed by CareCentrix, Inc. Signed by Clerk on 09/29/2021. (Attachments: #1 Removal Standing Order)(Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 09/28/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 09/28/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/27/2021. Discovery due by 3/30/2022.. Dispositive Motions due by 5/4/2022. Signed by Clerk on 09/28/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Judge Kari A. Dooley added. (Walker, J.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by CareCentrix, Inc. from Superior Court Hartford JD, case number HHD-CV-21-6146709-S. Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACTDC-6665854, filed by CareCentrix, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Action Cover Sheet)(Rollins, James) |
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 Connecticut 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
| Search for this case: Executive Staffing Solutions, Ltd v. CareCentrix, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Executive Staffing Solutions, Ltd | |
| Represented By: | Robert Frederic Ludgin |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: CareCentrix, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | James Scott Rollins |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
