From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cammarota v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 14, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-6642 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-6642

12-14-2011

JOSEPH CAMMAROTA, a minor, by AMY LYNN HALLOCK, Guardian and AMY LYNN HALLOCK, Individually v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE


ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2011, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Document No. 4), the defendant's response, and after oral argument, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to the state court from which it was removed.

_______________________

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.


Summaries of

Cammarota v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 14, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-6642 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2011)
Case details for

Cammarota v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH CAMMAROTA, a minor, by AMY LYNN HALLOCK, Guardian and AMY LYNN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Dec 14, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-6642 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2011)