Hauss v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

E.D. California

Hauss v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

DecidedJune 22, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01138

StatusUnknown

This text of Hauss v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Hauss v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hauss v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Thomas Hauss, No. 2:23-cv-01138-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. & Kimco Realty Co., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Defendant Kimco Realty Corporation has removed this action based on diversity 18 | jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. The removal statute is strictly construed, and 19 | doubts regarding the court’s jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand. See Luther v. 20 | Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). Under 28 U.S.C. 21 | § 1446(b)(2)(A), “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or 22 | consent to the removal of the action.” “[T]he filing of a notice of removal can be effective 23 | without individual consent documents on behalf of each defendant.” Proctor v. Vishay 24 | Jntertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, “[o]ne defendant’s 25 | timely removal notice containing an averment of the other defendants’ consent and signed by an 26 | attorney of record is sufficient.” Jd. 27 Here, Kimco does not claim or represent the other defendant, Home Depot U.S.A, Inc., 28 | consented to removal. See generally Notice of Removal. Accordingly, removal is improper. The

1 | Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the Superior Court for the State of California 2 | in and for the County of Sacramento, and to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: June 22, 2023. 5 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Thomas Hauss, No. 2:23-cv-01138-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. & Kimco Realty Co., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Defendant Kimco Realty Corporation has removed this action based on diversity 18 | jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. The removal statute is strictly construed, and 19 | doubts regarding the court’s jurisdiction are resolved in favor of remand. See Luther v. 20 | Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). Under 28 U.S.C. 21 | § 1446(b)(2)(A), “all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or 22 | consent to the removal of the action.” “[T]he filing of a notice of removal can be effective 23 | without individual consent documents on behalf of each defendant.” Proctor v. Vishay 24 | Jntertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009). For example, “[o]ne defendant’s 25 | timely removal notice containing an averment of the other defendants’ consent and signed by an 26 | attorney of record is sufficient.” Jd. 27 Here, Kimco does not claim or represent the other defendant, Home Depot U.S.A, Inc., 28 | consented to removal. See generally Notice of Removal. Accordingly, removal is improper. The

1 | Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this case to the Superior Court for the State of California 2 | in and for the County of Sacramento, and to close this case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: June 22, 2023. 5 6 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hauss v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hauss-v-home-depot-usa-inc-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack