Lauricella v. Cordis Corporation

Filing 13

ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL AND REOPENING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/29/07. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2007)

Download PDF
Lauricella v. Cordis Corporation Doc. 13 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSEPH LAURICELLA, Plaintiff, No. C 07-02016 SBA (PR) ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL AND REOPENING CASE CORDIS CORPORATION, Defendant. / Plaintiff Joseph Lauricella filed a pro se civil complaint which the Court dismissed and entered judgment on May 17, 2007. The complaint was dismissed because it appeared to the Court to be a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging claims against a private company, which the Court determined did not meet the standards for cognizable claims under 1983. After the action was dismissed, Plaintiff filed a letter with the Court dated May 20, 2007 that persuades the Court that the dismissal order and judgment should be vacated and the case should be reopened. Plaintiff states in his letter that he never intended to sue Defendant Cordis Corporation under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Instead, he claims that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this pro se civil action on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The district courts have original jurisdiction over a civil action where the matter in controversy exceed $ 75,000 and the action is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). For purposes of this statute, "a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business . . . ." 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 17, 2007 Order of Dismissal and Judgment. In a separate written Order, the Court will conduct another review of Plaintiff's civil complaint in order to determine if Plaintiff establishes the existence of diversity jurisdiction. The Court will also review Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application; therefore, its previous ruling of no filing fee being due is also vacated. Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Order of Dismissal and Judgment (docket nos. 10, 11) are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to REOPEN this case and mark the previously terminated motions (docket nos. 2, 5) as PENDING. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 5/29/07 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.vacateJUD.wpd 2 Case 4:07-cv-02016-SBA Document 13 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\Lauricella2016.vacateJUD.wpd 3 Joseph Lauricella 06022506 PFN Box 144 885 N San Pedro Street San Jose, CA 95110 Dated: May 29, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on May 29, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. v. CORDIS CORPORATION et al, Defendant. / JOSEPH LAURICELLA, Plaintiff, Case Number: CV07-02016 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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?