Good
Good v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
Opinion
Opinion
Wilken, J.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY
Plaintiff Walter L. Good moves to remand this case to State Court and seeks attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of the removal. Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) opposes. Prudential moves separately to stay all proceedings in this ease pending a final decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“the MDL Panel”) whether to transfer this ease. Mr. Good opposes. The matter was decided on the papers. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court denies the motion to remand and grants the motion to stay.
BACKGROUND
On January 21, 1998, Mr. Good filed a complaint in the Marin County Superior Court against Prudential and Defendant Barbara Magid, a Prudential insurance agent. Mr. Good alleges that in February, 1994, he met with Ms. Magid and Dianne Garcia, a Prudential insurance agent not named in the complaint, to discuss the possibility of purchasing an additional insurance policy with Prudential. According to Mr. Good, Ms. Magid made numerous representations concerning the benefits of a variable appreciable life insurance policy…