The Armand Hammer Foundation, Inc. v. Rex K. Alexander

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 20232:22-cv-08986California2,451 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-08986-FLA-SK Document Filed 01/13/ Page 1 of Page ID #:1132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THE ARMAND HAMMER Case No. 2:22-cv-08986-FLA (SKx)

FOUNDATION, INC.,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF THE ARMAND HAMMER v. FOUNDATION, INC.’S MOTION TO

REMAND [DKT. 14]

15 DAVE JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

1 Case 2:22-cv-08986-FLA-SK Document Filed 01/13/ Page 2 of Page ID #:1133

RULING Before the court is Plaintiff The Armand Hammer Foundation, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “AHF”) Motion to Remand (“Motion”). Dkt. 14 (“Mot.”). Defendant Rex K. Alexander (“Alexander”) opposes the Motion. Dkt. 25 (“Opp’n”). As of the date of this Order, Defendants Misty Hammer, Mark L. Alfano (“Alfano”), and Bull Canyon, Inc. (“Bull Canyon”) (together with Alexander, “Defendants”) have not appeared in the action or responded to the Motion. For…

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.