From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blucher v. Piccolo

United States District Court, S.D. California
Oct 5, 2010
CASE NO. 10-CV-1638 W (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 10-CV-1638 W (BLM).

October 5, 2010


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO STATE COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1447 [DOC. 8]


On May 14, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in California Superior Court for damages resulting from the sale of securities in violation of California Corporations Code § 25501.5 and rescission. On August 5, 2010, Defendants removed this case to this Court based upon diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.)

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to San Diego Superior Court. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiffs argue that removal was untimely, that Defendants failed to obtain consent of all defendants for removal, and that the Court should award attorney's fees and costs. In response to Plaintiffs' motion, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. 10.)

In light of Defendants' non-opposition to Plaintiffs' motion, and having read the moving papers and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion. (Doc. 8.) This case is hereby REMANDED to San Diego County Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Further, Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees and costs is supported by an itemized statement and as such the Court AWARDS Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $1650.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2010


Summaries of

Blucher v. Piccolo

United States District Court, S.D. California
Oct 5, 2010
CASE NO. 10-CV-1638 W (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)
Case details for

Blucher v. Piccolo

Case Details

Full title:JOANNA FOLEY BLUCHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES PICCOLO, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California

Date published: Oct 5, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 10-CV-1638 W (BLM) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)