McCray v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. et al
Filing
62
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT, AND SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. If any party objects, contends that remand is premature, or has a different proposal, then that party must respond to this order in writing by 10/9/2018. The Court also sets a telephonic case management for 10/17/2018 10:00 AM, if the case has not been remanded by that date. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 9/25/2018. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
IAN MCCRAY,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
15
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.,
and others,
Case No. 16-cv-02092 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO
WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE
REMANDED TO STATE COURT,
AND SETTING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Defendants.
16
17
18
This case was originally filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court and removed to
19
this court by the defendants. ECF 1. On June 20, 2016, this court denied plaintiff’s
20
motion to remand. ECF 22. On appeal of that and another order, the Ninth Circuit Court
21
of Appeal vacated the denial of the motion to remand. The Ninth Circuit directed that,
22
upon remand “the district court should return this case to state court for further
23
proceedings.” ECF 59, Opinion at p. 16. Today the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate.
24
ECF 61.
25
This Court intends to follow the instructions of the Ninth Circuit and to remand this
26
case back to the Superior Court. If any party objects to that proposal, contends that
27
remand is premature, or has a different proposal, then that party must respond to this order
28
in writing by October 9, 2018. The Court also sets a telephonic case management
Case No. 16-cv-02092 NC
1
conference for October 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., if the case has not been remanded by that
2
date.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2018
5
_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
6
7
8
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
Case No. 16-cv-02092 NC
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?