Spiewak et al v. A.O. Smith Water Products et al

Filing 21

ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that this action is remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of Schenectady. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 1/23/2017. [Copy served upon NY Supreme Court, County of Schenectady via certified mail.] (nmk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________________________ THOMAS SPIEWAK and ELLEN SPIEWAK, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., formerly known as Ventfabrics Inc.; BINGHAMTON HARDWARE & HVAC SUPPLY CORP.; BIRD INCORPORATED, formerly known as Bird & Son, Inc.; BOEING COMPANY, individually and as successor to McDonnell Douglas; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC; BURNHAM CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation formerly known as Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corp., a Pennsylvania Corp. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION; COLONIAL PLUMBING AND HEATING SUPPLY, INC.; CURTISS WRIGHT FLOW CONTROL CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Farris Valves and/or Sprague Pumps; DAP, INC., formerly known as La Mirada Products Co., Inc.; DURO DYNE CORPORATION; EATON CORPORATION, individually and now known as Eaton Electrical, Inc. and as successor to the Vickers Pump Company and Cutler Hammer, Inc.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER, LLC; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Company; GOODRICH CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to the Cleveland Pneumatic Company, a Division of the Pneumo Abex Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Abex, Inc. 1:17-CV-40 (FJS/DJS) formerly known as B.F. Goodrich Company; GOODYEAR CANADA, INC.; GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY (THE); HENDERSON-JOHNSON CO. INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corp. formerly known as Allied Signal, Inc.; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as successor to Turbine Equipment Company formerly known as Delaval, Inc.; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, individually and as successor by merger to Lockheed Corporation; MCDONNELL DOUGLASS CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NEW YORKER BOILER COMPANY, INC.; OWENS ILLINOIS, INC.; PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, individually and as successor by merger to Stratoflex, Inc. (Cleveland Brake Division); PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC.; RHEEM MANUFACTURING CORP.; SECURITY SUPPLY CORPORATION; SYRACUSE SUPPLY COMPANY; T.J. BELL & CO., INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Pratt & Whitney (Pratt & Whitney/Aircraft Division); YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Frick Company; EATON AEROQUIP, formerly known as Aeroquip Corporation, Defendants. _________________________________________________ ORDER On January 13, 2017, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). See Dkt. No. 1. Under § 1442, joinder of the other Defendants in this action was not necessary. However, as 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) requires, Defendant Lockheed -2- Martin Corporation did provide notice to the other Defendants regarding the filing of its Notice of Removal. See Dkt. No. 6. On January 20, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation filed a stipulation in which they agreed to the remand of this action to the New York Supreme Court, County of Schenectady. See Dkt. No. 20. Based on this stipulation, the Court hereby ORDERS that this action is remanded to the New York Supreme Court, County of Schenectady; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the New York Supreme Court, County of Schenectady as 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2017 Syracuse, New York -3-

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?