Amurkhanov

Sentry Insurance Company v. Amurkhanov

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 16, 20243:23-cv-05638California868 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 23-cv-05638-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING REMAND

13 v. Re: ECF No. 27

14 KHAYRULLA AMURKHANOV, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Following its settlement with defendants Khayrulla Amurkhanov and Aydin Express, the 18 plaintiff asks for the case to be remanded to the Alameda County Superior Court. The issue is 19 whether the court now lacks subject-matter jurisdiction such that remand is appropriate.1 The only 20 basis for subject-matter jurisdiction is count one of the complaint, which asserts a federal claim 21 under the Carmack Amendment against defendants All-Ways Trucking and Aydin Express.2 22 (Count two is a claim for subrogation against Dunkel Logistics.3) The plaintiff now contends that 23 All-Ways Trucking was a broker rather than a carrier and so is not subject to the Carmack 24 25

26 1 See Order – ECF No. 31; Statement – ECF No. 32. Citations refer to material…

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.