Bernard Brandchaft, Dr. v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc.

841 F.2d 886, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2209, 1988 WL 13228
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 1, 1988·No. 87-6528·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

ORDER

On July 2, 1987, this case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the time of removal, the complaint contained allegations against fictitious “Doe” defendants. On September 29, 1987, the district court struck the “Doe” allegations pursuant to C.D.Cal.R. 3.7.2.1 and dismissed the complaint as to defendant E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order on October 22, 1987.

On January 11, 1988, plaintiff moved to remand this case to state court pursuant to Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 832 F.2d 1080, 1083 n. 6 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc). The motion to remand is denied. Bryant does not require remand in cases where “Doe” defendants were stricken by the district court prior to the November 6, 1987 decision in Bryant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bernard Brandchaft, Dr. v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc., 841 F.2d 886, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2209, 1988 WL 13228 (9th Cir. 1988).

841 F.2d 886 (Bernard Brandchaft, Dr. v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
872 F.2d 1416 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Herbert E. Robards v. Gaylord Brothers, Inc.
854 F.2d 1152 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
John Bogan v. Keene Corporation
852 F.2d 1238 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Sylvia Kohler v. Ericsson, Inc.
847 F.2d 499 (Ninth Circuit, 1988)
Casparian v. Allstate Insurance
689 F. Supp. 1009 (N.D. California, 1988)