YELLEN et al v. TELEDNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC. et al

Filing 42

ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO REMAND IS GRANTED. THIS CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILA. COUNTY, PA. BY 12/13/2011, PLFFS SHALL FILE A FEE PETITION ACCOUNTING FOR JUST COST & ANY ACTUAL EXPENSES, ETC. PLFFS' MOTION TO STA Y IS DENIED AS MOOT. TELEDYNE DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT. CIRRUS DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT. PLFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLFFS' MOTION TO REMAND IS DENIED; TELEDYNE DEFTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT. CIRRUS DEFTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED AS MOOT; & THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE STATISTICALLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE STEWART DALZELL ON 12/6/11. 12/7/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JACK YELLEN, et al.
v.
TELEDNE CONTINENTAL
MOTORS, INC., et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-3325

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2011, upon
consideration of defendants Continental Motors, Inc., Teledyne
Technologies Incorporated,1 TRY Industries, Inc., and Allegheny
Technologies Incorporated’s (collectively, the “Teledyne
defendants”) notice of removal (docket entry # 1), plaintiffs
Jack Yelled, Dana Moffett, Cynthia J. Tobin, Daniel Bozeman and
Lesley Bozeman’s (collectively, the “plaintiffs”) motion to
remand to state court (docket entry # 15), plaintiffs’ motion to
stay (docket entry # 21), defendants Cirrus Design Corp., Cirrus
Aircraft Corp., and Cirrus Industries’s (collectively, the
“Cirrus defendants”) response in opposition to remand (docket
entry # 22), the Teledyne defendants’ motion to dismiss the
amended complaint (docket entry # 23), the Teledyne defendants’
response in opposition to remand (docket entries ## 25-26), the
Cirrus defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint

1

The caption on the docket incorrectly spells "Teledyne".

(docket entry # 27), the Teledyne defendants’ response in
opposition to the motion to stay (docket entry # 28), the Cirrus
defendants’ response in opposition to the motion to stay (docket
entry # 29), plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file reply in
support of their motion to remand (docket entry # 30), the
Teledyne defendants’ response in opposition thereto (docket entry
# 32), plaintiffs’ response in opposition to the motion to
dismiss (docket entry # 34), the Teledyne defendants’ motion for
leave to file reply in support of motion to dismiss the amended
complaint (docket entry # 36), the Cirrus defendants’ motion for
leave to file reply in support of motion to dismiss the amended
complaint (docket entry # 37), plaintiffs’ response in opposition
to motion for leave to file reply in support of motion to dismiss
the amended complaint (docket entry # 38), and in accordance with
the accompanying Memorandum and the Court also finding that
additional replies were unnecessary to decide this remand
question, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (docket entry # 15)

is GRANTED;
2.

This case is REMANDED to the Court Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;

2

3.

By December 13, 2011, Plaintiffs shall FILE a fee

petition accounting for “just costs and any actual expenses,
including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal,”
supported by the requisite billing and expense records, and
clearly itemizing the costs and fees incurred in preparing the
motion to remand, motion to stay, and the first set of responses
in opposition to the Teledyne and Cirrus defendants’ respective
motions to dismiss, with the Teledyne defendants and Cirrus
defendants’ separate responses to the fee petition due by
December 20, 2011;
4.

Plaintiffs’ motion to stay (docket entry # 21) is

DENIED AS MOOT;
5.

The Teledyne defendants’ motion to dismiss the

amended complaint (docket entry # 23) is DENIED AS MOOT;
6.

The Cirrus defendants’ motion to dismiss the

amended complaint (docket entry # 27) is DENIED AS MOOT;
7.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file reply in

support of plaintiffs’ motion to remand (docket entry # 30) is
DENIED;
8.

The Teledyne defendants’ motion for leave to file

reply in support of motion to dismiss the amended complaint
(docket entry # 36) is DENIED AS MOOT;
3

9.

The Cirrus defendants’ motion for leave to file

reply in support of motion to dismiss the amended complaint
(docket entry # 37) is DENIED AS MOOT; and
10.

The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case

statistically.

BY THE COURT:
__\s\Stewart Dalzell

4