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
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?