Mario H. Cabrera et al v. Martinez & Associates, LLC. et al
Filing
9
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/27/2012 REMANDING CASE to Kern County Superior Court. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
Lenden F. Webb (SBN 236377)
Amy R. Lovegren-Tipton (SBN 258697)
Manuel E. Ignacio (SBN 279191)
WEBB & BORDSON, APC
466 W. Fallbrook Ave. Suite 102
Fresno, CA 93711
Telephone: (559) 431-4888
Facsimile: (559) 821-4500
Email: MIgnacio@WBLawGroup.com
5
6
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
MARIO H. CABRERA, an individual, and ROSA CABRERA, an individual
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION
8
9
10
WEBB & BORDSON, APC
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, California 93711
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLC, dba
MARIO’S BODY SHOP SUPPLIES; JOSE )
MANRIQUEZ, dba MARIO’S BODY SHOP )
)
SUPPLIES; and DOES 1 through 25,
)
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MARIO H. CABRERA and ROSA
CABRERA,
CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-01782-LJO-JLT
STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE
BACK TO KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; ORDER THEREON
18
19
Plaintiffs MARIO H. CABRERA, an Individual; and ROSA CABRERA,
20
an Individual (“CABRERA”); Defendant MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, LLC, dba
21
MARIO’S BODY SHOP SUPPLIES (“MARTINEZ”) and Defendant JOSE
22
MANRIQUEZ, dba MARIO’S BODY SHOP SUPPLIES (“MANRIQUEZ”)
23
(collectively “Parties”) by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby
24
stipulate and agree as follows:
25
26
STIPULATION
1.
On July 20, 2011, Plaintiffs commenced an action in the Superior Court
27
of California, County of Kern entitled Mario H. Cabrera and Rose Cabrera v. Martinez
28
& Associates, LLC dba Mario’s Body Shop Supplies, Jose Manriquez, dba Mario’s Body
STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE; ORDER THEREON
-1-
1
Shop Supplies, et al bearing Kern County Case No. S-1500-CL-261230 (hereinafter “the
2
Action”).
2.
3
4
Removal of the Action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1446.
3.
5
6
“While the failure of one defendant to consent renders the removal
defective, each defendant need not necessarily sign the notice of removal.
(Citation omitted.) There must, however, be some timely filed written
indication from each served defendant, or some person with authority to act on
the defendant’s behalf, indicating that the defendant has actually consented to
the removal.” (Getty Oil Corporation, Succeeded by and a Division of Texaco,
Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America 841 F.2d 1254 (Fifth Circuit
1988) (Emphasis added.)
8
9
10
11
WEBB & BORDSON, APC
Defendant MARTINEZ has not consented to Removal in this case and
therefore the required unanimity of Defendants for Removal is absent:
7
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, California 93711
On or about October 26, 2011, Defendant MANRIQUEZ filed a Notice of
12
4.
In addition, after discussion among the Parties, it was discovered that
13
there is no triable cause of action to be heard before the Eastern District Court and that
14
the matter should be remanded to the Kern County Superior Court. The parties agree
15
that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the facts of this case do not
16
satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (12
17
U.S.C. §5220).
18
5.
The parties hereto stipulate that the Action should be remanded to Kern
19
County Superior Court.
20
6.
The parties further stipulate that each party shall bear its own attorneys’
21
fees and costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of the Action pursuant
22
to this Stipulation and Order.
23
24
25
///
26
27
///
28
///
STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE; ORDER THEREON
-2-
1
2
Dated: January 25, 2012
WEBB & BORDSON, APC
3
4
By: __/Manuel E. Ignacio/_______
Manuel E. Ignacio
Attorney for Plaintiffs
MARIO H. CABRERA and
ROSA CABRERA
5
6
7
8
9
10
WEBB & BORDSON, APC
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, California 93711
11
12
Dated: January 26, 2012
13
GATTUSO & KUMMER
By: _/Dixon G. Kummer/_______
Dixon G. Kummer
Attorney for Defendant
MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES,
LLC, dba MARIO’S BODY
SHOP SUPPLIES
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Dated: January 26, 2012
23
24
By:__/Jose Manriquez/______________
JOSE MANRIQUEZ, dba MARIO’S
BODY SHOP SUPPLIES, Defendant
In Pro Per
25
///
26
27
///
28
///
STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE; ORDER THEREON
-3-
1
ORDER
2
3
On January 26, 2012 the Parties to the above-referenced action filed a Stipulation
4
to Remand Removed Action. The Court having reviewed that Stipulation and good cause
5
appearing, Orders as follows:
6
1.
The Parties’ Stipulation is approved;
7
2.
Eastern District of California, Case No. 11-cv-1782-LJO-JLT styled
8
MARIO H. CABRERA AND ROSA CABRERA v. MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES,
9
LLC., dba MARIO’S BODY SHOP SUPPLIES; JOSE MANRIQUEZ, dba MARIO’S
WEBB & BORDSON, APC
BODY SHOP SUPPLIES; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive is hereby remanded to
11
466 West Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
Fresno, California 93711
10
Kern County Superior Court.
12
The clerk is directed to take necessary action to remand this action to
13
Kern County Superior Court.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
Dated:
January 27, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
19
66h44d
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO REMAND CASE; ORDER THEREON
-4-
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?