Bridges

Bridges v. PacifiCorp

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 2, 20222:22-cv-01698California2,768 words

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 | Beverly U. Bridges, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01698-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 V. 14 PacifiCorp & Richard Harris, 1S Defendants. 16 17 This case arises from the destruction of properties caused by the McKinney Fire in the 18 | summer of 2022. Defendant PacifiCorp removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity 19 | jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder. Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to remand. For the 20 | reasons below, the court grants the motion. 21 | I. BACKGROUND 22 On July 29, 2022, the McKinney Fire spread through Siskiyou County, damaging 23 | plaintiffs’ real and personal property. Ex. C, First Am. Compl. (FAC) 9] 16, 22, ECF No. 1-3. 24 | On August 16, 2022, plaintiffs filed a complaint against PacifiCorp and Doe defendants. See Ex. 25 | A, Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiffs later added Richard Harris as a defendant in their first 26 | amended complaint. FAC § 12.

1 Harris works 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.