Armstrong
Armstrong v. FCA US LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH ARMSTRONG, No. 1:19-cv-01275-DAD-SAB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REMAND THIS ACTION AND
14 FCA US LLC, and LAMPE CHRYSLER DENYING DEFENDANT LAMPE
DODGE JEEP RAM, CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM’S RULE 21
15 MOTION Defendants. 16 (Doc. Nos. 8, 9, 11, 19)
17 18 This matter came before the court on November 5, 2019 for a hearing on plaintiff’s 19 motion to remand this action to the Tulare County Superior Court.1 (Doc. No. 11.) Attorneys 20 Benjeman Beck and Long Cao appeared telephonically on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Parris 21 Schmidt appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”). There was no 22 appearance made on behalf of defendant Lampe Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Lampe”), which at 23 the time of the hearing, had not yet appeared in this case. For the reasons explained below, the 24 court will grant plaintiff’s motion to remand. 25