Summary
In Brandchaft v. E.F. Hutton Co., 841 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1988), we decided that " Bryant does not require remand in cases where `Doe' defendants were stricken by the district court prior to the November 6, 1987 decision in Bryant."
Summary of this case from Kruso v. International Tel. Telegraph Corp.Opinion
No. 87-6528.
Submitted January 28, 1988.
Decided February 1, 1988.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before TANG, FLETCHER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
On July 2, 1987, this case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. At the time of removal, the complaint contained allegations against fictitious "Doe" defendants. On September 29, 1987, the district court struck the "Doe" allegations pursuant to C.D.Cal.R. 3.7.2.1 and dismissed the complaint as to defendant E.F. Hutton Company, Inc. Plaintiff appealed the district court's order on October 22, 1987.
On January 11, 1988, plaintiff moved to remand this case to state court pursuant to Bryant v. Ford Motor Co., 832 F.2d 1080, 1083 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1987) (en banc). The motion to remand is denied. Bryant does not require remand in cases where "Doe" defendants were stricken by the district court prior to the November 6, 1987 decision in Bryant.