• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
5 results

Free Spool Investments, LLC v. Engbretch

Docket 1:22-cv-01546, California Eastern District Court (Dec. 1, 2022)
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, presiding, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean
Rent, Lease & Ejectment
DivisionFresno
FlagsPRO_SE, CLOSED
Cause28:1331 Fed. Question
Case Type230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment
Tags230 Rent, Lease and Ejectment, 230 Rent, Lease and Ejectment
Plaintiff Free Spool Investments, LLC
Defendant Engbretch
Defendant Sheree Engbretch
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Pariani v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC et al

Docket 2:22-cv-01546, California Eastern District Court (Sept. 2, 2022)
District Judge Dale A. Drozd, presiding, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire
Healthcare/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability
DivisionSacramento
FlagsCIVIL, CLOSED
Demand$75,000
Cause28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury
Case Type367 Healthcare/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability
Tags367 Healthcare / Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability, Personal Injury, Tort, Civil, 367 Healthcare / Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability, Personal Injury, Tort, Civil
Plaintiff Margurite Pariani
Defendant Mead Johnson & Company, LLC
Defendant Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 4 ORDER sua sponte REMANDING CASE to Kings County Superior Court signed by District Judge Jennifer ...

Document Free Spool Investments, LLC v. Engbretch, 1:22-cv-01546, No. 4 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 2, 2022)
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Free Spool Investments, LLC, initiated this action against Sheree Engbretch by filing a complaint for unlawful detainer in Kings County Superior Court, Case No. 22UD-0329.1 (Doc. 1 at 7- 9.)
/// /// 1 The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand.
The Court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo.
Thus, a court “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 37 AMENDED MDL REMAND ORDER signed by District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 9/19/2022

Document Pariani v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC et al, 2:22-cv-01546, No. 37 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 24, 2022)
The court's previous MDL remand closing order dated 8/31/2022 [32] is vacated.
The court, in error, transferred this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order [31], this case is remanded, forthwith, to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, Case number FCS057968.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, forthwith.
United States District Judge
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 31 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 8/29/2022

Document Pariani v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC et al, 2:22-cv-01546, No. 31 (E.D.Cal. Aug. 29, 2022)
Citing the fraudulent joinder doctrine, Abbott contends that Plaintiffs do not state any viable claims against the hospital defendants, having joined them solely to frustrate diversity and avoid federal court.
McMasters v. United States, 260 F.3d 814, 819 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that the court to which a diversity case has been transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 is “free to decide [federal issues] in the manner it views as correct without deferring to the interpretation of the transferor circuit” (quoting In re Korean Air Lines Disaster of September 1, 1983, 829 F.2d 1171, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Ginsburg, J.)
Citing Silverhart, San Diego, and similar cases, the appellate court held that “[c]auses of action based in negligence are not affected” by the rule that hospitals are medical service providers that are not subject to strict liability.
Thus, the Anderson court’s incidental reference to “manufacturer[s]” and “distributor[s]” does not undermine the Bigler-Engler court’s more direct and thorough analysis—or its holding—on the question whether a hospital defendant may be held liable for negligent failure to warn when it supplies a product in the course of providing a medical service.
Abbott has not carried its heavy burden of proving that, as a matter of law, a hospital defendant cannot be held liable for negligent failure to warn when it supplies a product in the course of providing a medical service.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search