Clayton v. Tintri, Inc. et al

Filing 17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY MOTION TO REMAND SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. Show Cause Response due by: Defendant Opposition to plaintiff's motions filed by 10/13/2017. Plaintiff reply filed by 10/16/17. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/11/17. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 LAURENCE CLAYTON, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 vs. TINTRI, INC., ET AL., Defendants. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 RUSTEM NURLYBAYEV, 12 13 14 15 CASE NO. 17-cv-05683-YGR CASE NO. 17-cv-05684-YGR Plaintiff, vs. TINTRI, INC., ET AL., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY MOTION TO REMAND SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED Defendants. 16 Defendant Tintri, Inc. is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the above-captioned cases 17 should not be remanded to the California Superior Court in and for San Mateo County (the “state 18 court”) for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Based on the authorities cited in each motion to 19 remand the Court views the motions proper and intends to remand the above-captioned cases to 20 the state court. (See Claton v. Tintri, Inc., et al, 4:17-cv-05683-YGR, Dkt. No. 14; Nurlybayev v. 21 Tintri, Inc., et al, 4:17-cv-05684-YGR, Dkt. No. 11.) 22 Defendant shall file oppositions to plaintiffs’ motions in the above-captioned cases by 23 Friday, October 13, 2017. Failure to timely file shall be deemed an admission that the motions to 24 remand are proper. Plaintiffs shall file any reply brief by Monday, October 16, 2017. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: October 11, 2017 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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?