Burnette

Burnette v. Godshall

Good Law
828 F. Supp. 1439·1993 WL 281082·27 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 125·1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15276
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 12, 1993Civ. 93-20218 SWCalifornia4,657 words

Opinion

Opinion

Williams, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DECLARATION THEREON

Plaintiff Velma Burnette brings this action against Robert Godshall and others (“Defendants”) alleging several causes of action arising out of an altercation she had with Mr. Godshall, a co-employee at Lockheed. After Plaintiff amended her complaint to add a cause of action under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (b) and (c), Defendants removed the case to this Court. Plaintiff now moves to dismiss the RICO claim and to remand the action to state court. Aso, both Plaintiff and Defendants move for Rule 11 sanctions. For the reasons expressed below, Plaintiffs RICO cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Plaintiffs motion to remand is DENIED; Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is DENIED; and Defendants’ motion for sanctions is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Velma Burnette was employed by defendant Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (“Lockheed”) as a reproduction equipment operator in the print shop. She complains that on February 24, 1993, defendant Robert Godshall, a…

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.