Feitelberg

Feitelberg v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

Good Law
234 F. Supp. 2d 1043·2002 WL 31322544·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19875
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 9, 2002C 02-3072 MHPCalifornia4,811 words

Opinion

Opinion

Patel, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Jerome Feitelberg brought this class action in state court against Merrill Lynch & Co., Thomas Mazzucco, Henry Blodget, and Does 1-30 on behalf of himself and all others resident in the State of California who are similarly situated. Plaintiff brings this motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1441 and 1447 on the grounds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that this court does not have jurisdiction regarding his single claim under section 17200 et seq. of the California Business & Professional Code. Defendant removed this action to federal court based on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”). 15 U.S.C. § 77p, 78bb(f). Now before the court is plaintiffs motion to remand the action to state court. Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the court now enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

This action is one in a series of cases filed in the wake of Merrill Lynch’s announcement in May 2002 of a tentative settlement with the Attorney General of the State of New York. Following the investigation by the New York Attorney…

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.