Scheinman v. Coleman Company, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER Granting 9 Motion to Remand to State Court. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/4/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; CC: Certified Copy of Docket Sheet and Order to State Court - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

STUART A. SCHEINMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
THE COLEMAN COMPANY, INC.;
)
DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS )
1-10, inclusive
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00005-GMN-CWH
ORDER

10
11

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Stuart A. Scheinman’s Motion to Remand to State

12

Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff argues that because his damages to

13

date are approximately $12,082.50, the amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. §

14

1332 is not satisfied and this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction to hear the matter. In its

15

Response, Defendant The Coleman Company expresses that based on Plaintiff’s representations,

16

it does not oppose remand. Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court Pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remand this

19

action back to the Eighth Judicial District Court for the County of Clark, State of Nevada.

20

DATED this 4th day of June, 2013.

21
22
23
24
25

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge