From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vincent v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
Aug 1, 2008
CV 08-73-M-DWM-JCL (D. Mont. Aug. 1, 2008)

Summary

overlooking failure to adequately explain absence of co-defendant where "[b]y his own admission, [plaintiff] clearly knows that he has not yet effected service on" co-defendants

Summary of this case from Satcher v. Stanislaus

Opinion

CV 08-73-M-DWM-JCL.

August 1, 2008


ORDER


The Court having reviewed for clear error the Findings and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch, and having found no clear error therein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. No. 9) is DENIED, and that the Amended Notice of Removal filed on June 23, 2008 (Doc. No. 14) takes effect and supersedes Defendant Werner's first Notice of Removal from this point forward.


Summaries of

Vincent v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
Aug 1, 2008
CV 08-73-M-DWM-JCL (D. Mont. Aug. 1, 2008)

overlooking failure to adequately explain absence of co-defendant where "[b]y his own admission, [plaintiff] clearly knows that he has not yet effected service on" co-defendants

Summary of this case from Satcher v. Stanislaus
Case details for

Vincent v. Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS ST. VINCENT, Plaintiff, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., JANVIER SMYTH…

Court:United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

Date published: Aug 1, 2008

Citations

CV 08-73-M-DWM-JCL (D. Mont. Aug. 1, 2008)

Citing Cases

Satcher v. Stanislaus

Lastly, without Defendant being able to affirmatively explain its co-defendant's absence, this is not the…