McRae

Homeport Insurance v. McRae

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 16, 20244:23-cv-06409California1,781 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HOMEPORT INSURANCE, Case No. 23-cv-06409-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND

v. Re: Dkt. No. 8 VERONICA MCRAE, et al., Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Homeport Insurance’s motion to remand, Dkt. No. 8. The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and deems it submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to remand. I. BACKGROUND In August 2023, Homeport Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Veronica McRae (“Defendant McRae”) and her lawyers, Daniel Weltin, Philip Weltin and Weltin, Streb & Weltin (“Defendant Attorneys”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in Alameda County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. A (“Compl.”). The suit alleges that a settlement reached by (as relevant here) Plaintiff, Defendant McRae and her Defendant Attorneys in October 2022 – in which Plaintiff …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.