Vanderzalm et al v. Seachrist Industries, Inc.
| Janet Vanderzalm and John Vanderzalm |
| Orlando Salcedo and Seachrist Industries, Inc. |
| 2:2011cv04253 |
| September 2, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Central Islip Office |
| Arthur D. Spatt |
| William D. Wall |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
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
19
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - The Court finds that the joinder of Salcedo and Brookhaven Hospital is permissible under Rule 20 and that joinder is fundamentally fair insofar as there has been no substantial delay; the Defendants have not shown that they will be prejudiced by remand; and the Plaintiffs motivation in joining Salcedo and Brookhaven Hospital in order to consolidate the two actions and promote judicial economy, was neither improper nor fraudulent. On the contrary, the Court fin ds that the Plaintiffs motivation was proper. Accordingly, this Court is therefore bound by the provisions of § 1447(e) and the present action must be, and hereby is, remanded to state court. The motions for dismissal brought by Sechrist and Salcedo are denied as moot without prejudice to renewal in the state court. Signed by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/12/2012. Civil Case Terminated. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
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 New York Eastern 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.
