Teitelbaum

Teitelbaum v. Soloski

Good Law
843 F. Supp. 614·93 Daily Journal DAR 2384·1994 WL 42275·1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1326
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 1994CV 94-0013 AWTCalifornia923 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tashima, J.

MEMORANDUM ORDER OF REMAND

This action was removed here by defendant Warren J. Soloski (“Soloski”) on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Because of substantial doubt as to the timeliness of removal, an order to show cause (“OSC”) was issued why this action should not be remanded to state court. At about the same time, plaintiff made a timely motion to remand the action to state court. One of the grounds of remand urged by plaintiff was that certain defendants had not timely joined in the notice of removal. Both the OSC and motion have now been fully briefed and submitted for decision.

Soloski’s notice of removal was filed on January 3, 1994. He was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on December 9, 1993. Defendants FedSure U.S., Inc., and Roger Thompson (collectively “Fed-sure”) filed their joinder to the notice of removal on January 12. They had been served with the summons and complaint on December 12. Although the sufficiency of service is contested, it is undisputed that Fedsure received a copy of the summons and complaint on that date.

The removal statute provides, in part:

28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a) & (b) (emphasis added). Under this language all…

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.