Raaf v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
Plaintiff: Cathie Raaf
Defendant: UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
Case Number: 6:2018cv00976
Filed: June 4, 2018
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Eugene (6) Office
Presiding Judge: Michael J. McShane
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 49:11707 Carmack Amendment
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 25, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to remand 6 is granted. As I lack jurisdiction over this action, Defendant's motion to dismiss 7 is denied. Plaintiff is granted 14 days to move for costs and any actual expenses incurred as a result of the improper removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Signed on 9/25/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Raaf v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cathie Raaf
Represented By: Emmanuel Benjamin Miller
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: UPS Ground Freight, Inc.
Represented By: Kevin M. Anderson
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?