Merrill et al v. Pro-Point, Inc. et al

Filing 29

ORDER Granting 18 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 2/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: Certified Copy of Order and Docket Sheet Sent to State Court - DXS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

JAY MERRILL, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

PRO-POINT, INC., et al.,

14

Case No. 2:12-cv-2155-LDG (NJK)
ORDER

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

The plaintiffs, Jay and Cherie Merrill, move to remand (#18), to which the removing
defendant, Karcher North America, Inc., has responded (#24).
The court has original jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a), as

19

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit is between citizens of different

20

states. (The plaintiffs are citizens of Missouri; The defendants are citizens of Delaware,

21

Colorado, Utah, and Nevada.) Nevertheless, the plaintiffs have shown that a procedural

22

defect exists in the removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441(b)(2), as Pro-Point Inc., was

23

properly joined and served as a defendant and is a citizen of Nevada, the state in which

24

this action was brought. The plaintiffs timely brought their motion to remand within 30 days

25

of the filing of the notice of removal, in compliance with 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Accordingly,

26

1

the Court will remand this action to state court, but will not require the payment of costs and

2

fees incurred as a result of the removal. Therefore,

3

THE COURT ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand (#18) is GRANTED as

4

follows. This action is REMANDED to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County,

5

Nevada. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the clerk of the

6

State court.

7
8

DATED this ______ day of February, 2013.

9
10

Lloyd D. George
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2