Herman

Herman Ex Rel. General Public v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

Good Law
266 F. Supp. 2d 1208·2003 WL 21005754·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7221
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 20033:03-cr-00016California2,309 words

Opinion

Opinion

Whelan, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

Defendants Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., et al., (“Defendants”) move to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Jerome Herman (“Plaintiff’) opposes. The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.(d.l). For the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

I. Background

On December 6, 2002 Plaintiff commenced this action in San Diego Superior Court alleging that Defendants violated California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (the “Unfair Competition Law,” hereinafter “UCL”) in connection with municipal bond sales. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants charged excessive fees on Triple A and Double A secondary market municipal bonds and then failed to disclose such markups to consumers.

On January 3, 2003 Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 . According to Defendants, federal jurisdiction is proper because federal law interpretation is required to resolve the case. Additionally, Defendants…

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.