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)
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?