From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malone v. Malone

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 13, 2007
Civil No. 06-1629-AS (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2007)

Summary

finding that exclusive federal jurisdiction did not erase the requirement that all defendants must join in the notice of removal

Summary of this case from Pix v. Alper

Opinion

Civil No. 06-1629-AS.

March 13, 2007

Eric K. Helmy, The Helmy Law Firm, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Plaintiff.

Truman A. Stone, Brown Tarlow Bridges Palmer, P.C., Newberg, Oregon. Beth A. Cupani, David D. VanSpeybroeck, Bullivant Houser Bailey, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


The Honorable Donald Ashmanskas, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on February 20, 2007. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Ashmanskas' Findings and Recommendation (#30).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (#14) is granted. This action is remanded to the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Yamhill County.


Summaries of

Malone v. Malone

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 13, 2007
Civil No. 06-1629-AS (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2007)

finding that exclusive federal jurisdiction did not erase the requirement that all defendants must join in the notice of removal

Summary of this case from Pix v. Alper
Case details for

Malone v. Malone

Case Details

Full title:GAIL MALONE in her capacity as guardian ad litem of K.P.M., a minor…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 13, 2007

Citations

Civil No. 06-1629-AS (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2007)

Citing Cases

Waite v. Perfect Fit Indus., LLC

Defendant nevertheless argues that the Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion to Remand because this Court has…

Pix v. Alper

Consequently, courts have consistently rejected the argument that a removing defendant does not have to…