Flury v. Chex Systems Incorporated

Filing 15

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/19/13.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV13-01284-PHX-DGC

Van E. Flury,
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Chex System, Inc.,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this case to State court. Doc 10. The

16

motion is fully briefed. Doc. 11, 12. No party has requested oral arguments. For the

17

reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

18

After a notice of removal has been filed with this Court, defendants are required to

19

“give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with

20

the clerk of such State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). Plaintiff argues that Defendant did

21

not properly notify the South Mountain Justice Court or the Encanto Justice Court of the

22

removal because the Notice of Removal (Doc 1) is not time-stamped by either State

23

court. Doc. 10 at 1. Plaintiff also argues that the Encanto Justice Court’s docket shows

24

that the State courts are unaware of removal. Id. at 2-5.

25

Defendant has provided stamped versions of the notice of removal in the response

26

brief (Doc. 11-1 at 4 and 11), along with an order from the Encanto Justice Court

27

confirming notice of the transfer. Id. at 19. The State courts were properly notified as

28

required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

1

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to remand (Doc. 10) is denied.

2

Dated this 19th day of August, 2013.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
‐ 2 ‐