Yeager, et al v. Parsons Behle & Latimer et al
Filing
47
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/24/2015 ORDERING that the 43 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. Plaintiff's 13 motion to remand is DENIED. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of an order in the related case, No. 13-0007, on the question of General Yeager's competency to proceed without representation. CASE STAYED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
GENERAL CHARLES E. “CHUCK”
YEAGER (RET.), et al.,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-2544 KJM DAD PS
ORDER
v.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER, PLC, et
al.,
16
Defendants.
17
Plaintiffs, General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager, Ret., and Victoria Yeager, his
18
19
wife, are proceeding pro se in this case. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
20
Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On December 16, 2014, the Yeagers filed a joint motion to remand this case to
21
22
California Superior Court. ECF No. 13. The defendants opposed the motion, ECF No. 27, and
23
the Yeagers filed a joint reply, ECF No. 29. On August 4, 2015, the magistrate judge filed
24
findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all
25
parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen
26
days after service of the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 43. The Yeagers filed joint
27
objections to the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 44, and the defendants filed a response,
28
ECF No. 46.
1
1
In a related case, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Yeager, et al., No. 13-007 (E.D. Cal. filed
2
Jan. 2, 2013), also pending before the undersigned, the court recently held an evidentiary hearing
3
on the question of General Yeager’s ability to proceed without counsel. See Minutes Sept. 14,
4
2015, Case No. 13-007, ECF No. 218. The court has not yet issued an order on that question;
5
however, the court concludes it may decide the question before it in this motion because the
6
court’s order does not serve as a judgment on the merits of the parties’ dispute. Cf. Allen v.
7
Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that in a non-habeas civil case, if an
8
incompetent person is unrepresented, the court may not enter a judgment on the merits without
9
complying with Rule 17(c)); Nutter v. Monongahela Power Co., 4 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 1993)
10
(“[A] district court’s findings incident to an order of remand have no preclusive effect.” (citing,
11
inter alia, Whitman v. Raley’s Inc., 886 F.2d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 1989))).
12
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304,
13
this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds
14
the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis, and
15
adopts them in full. The court writes separately here only to address two points raised in
16
objection to the findings and recommendations.
17
First, the Yeagers argue, as they did in their motion, that the defendants owed them
18
a fiduciary duty (1) to inform them that should a dispute arise, and should they later file an action
19
in state court, federal law could potentially allow removal of the case to federal district court, and
20
(2) not to remove the case to federal district court should adjudication in federal court be less
21
favorable to the Yeagers. Other than general statements of an attorney’s fiduciary duty to his or
22
her client, the Yeagers cite no authority to support these arguments, and the court is aware of
23
none.
24
Second, the Yeagers argue public policy favors remand to state court. “[F]ederal
25
courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise their jurisdiction except in those
26
extraordinary circumstances ‘where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would
27
clearly serve an important countervailing interest.’” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 203
28
(1988) (quoting Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813
2
1
(1976)). The Yeagers have pointed to no circumstances that require adjudication in state courts.
2
Moreover, the defendants have a legitimate interest in this court’s jurisdiction. See Lively v. Wild
3
Oats Markets, 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Removal based on diversity jurisdiction is intended
4
to protect out-of-state defendants from possible prejudices in state court.”).
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 4, 2015 (Dkt. No. 43) are
7
adopted in full;
8
2. Plaintiff’s December 16, 2014 motion to remand (Dkt. No. 13) is denied; and
9
3. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of an order in the related case,
10
No. 13-0007, on the question of General Yeager’s competency to proceed without representation.
11
DATED: September 24, 2015.
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?