Hammett

Hammett v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 6, 20213:19-cv-00605California4,405 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19-CV-605 TWR (LL)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND

TRANSFER VENUE

MARY E. SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants. (ECF No. 223) 16 Plaintiff Laura Hammett has filed a Motion to Bifurcate and Transfer Venue. (“Mot. to Bifurcate,” ECF No. 223.) Defendants oppose. (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 225), and Plaintiff has replied. (“Reply,” ECF No. 233.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND This case stems from personal and professional conflicts among the shareholders of Silver Strand Plaza, LLC (“SSP”), a family-owned, California-based corporation. (Second Am. Compl., (“SAC,” ECF No. 145) ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s parents, Norman and “Sandi” Kramer, established SSP in order to distribute their wealth among their children. (SAC ¶ 37.) Plaintiff and several Defendants, including Sherman, Dennis,…

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.