Toumajian

Toumajian v. Frailey

Caution
135 F.3d 648·98 Daily Journal DAR 1055·1998 WL 30636·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 5924·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 782
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 29, 1998No. 95-56213California5,344 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jenkins, J.

OVERVIEW

Plaintiff Michael Toumajian ñled a Complaint in California state court in which he asserted that the defendants, Richard Frai-ley and Frailey & Associates, Inc. (collectively “Frailey”), were negligent in advising him in setting up and administering a pension plan. The defendants had the matter removed to the district court. On motion of the defendants, the district court dismissed the Complaint. Following payment of sanctions to the defendant, plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Remand. The district court dismissed the Amended Complaint without leave to amend and denied the Motion to Remand as moot. On appeal, the plaintiff challenges both the first and second dismissals as well as the award of sanctions. Because we conclude the action was improvidently removed in the first instance, all orders subsequently entered by the district court dismissing the Complaint and the Amended Complaint are reversed. Although our conclusion that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction does not necessarily invalidate the district court’s award of sanctions, we also reverse that award. Accordingly, the action is remanded to…

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.