Unterleitner v. BASF Catalysts LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER re: Stipulation to Shorten Time on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Hearing on Motion to Remand set for 3/3/2016 10:30 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Defendant's response and consent to or declination of magistrate judge jurisdiction due by 3/1/2016 at noon. Plaintiff's reply due by 3/2/2016 at noon. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on February 26, 2016. (jsclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROLF UNTERLEITNER, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-00818-JSC v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO SHORTEN TIME ON HEARING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 15 12 13 Plaintiff Rolf Unterleitner (“Plaintiff”) filed this asbestos litigation action against a number 14 of Defendants, including Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (f/k/a CSK Auto, Inc.) 15 (“O’Reilly”), in Alameda County Superior Court. (See Dkt. No. 1-1.) O’Reilly, claiming that it is 16 the only remaining defendant and that the parties are diverse, removed the case to federal court on 17 February 18, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand, 18 which is set for hearing on March 31, 2016. (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiff and O’Reilly have since filed 19 a stipulation to shorten the time for hearing the motion to remand, in which they agree to a 20 condensed briefing schedule followed by a hearing next week, on March 3, 2016. (Dkt. No. 15 at 21 2-3.) Plaintiff and O’Reilly did not provide any reason for changing the briefing and hearing 22 schedule in their stipulation. However, Plaintiff’s motion to remand indicates that the matter was 23 set for trial as a “preference” case in state court on February 16, 2016 due to the seriousness of 24 Plaintiff’s illness and the expectation that he would not survive for six months beyond the date on 25 which he requested the preferential trial setting. (Dkt. No. 14 at 7 (record citations omitted).) 26 The Court therefore enters the parties’ stipulation to shorten the time on Plaintiff’s motion to 27 remand. The motion is set for hearing on March 3, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., with O’Reilly’s 28 opposition due March 1, 2016 at noon, and Plaintiff’s Reply due March 2, 2016 at noon. 1 While Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge (see 2 Dkt. No. 14-7), O’Reilly has not filed a consent or declination, so the Court cannot finally decide 3 Plaintiff’s motion for remand. Accordingly, O’Reilly must file a consent to or declination of the 4 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge along with its opposition to the motion to remand. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 26, 2016 7 8 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?