Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loredo v. Drive Financial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


December 6, 2007

DANIEL LOREDO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DRIVE FINANCIAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary L. Cooper United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THE COURT having ordered the removing party - the defendant Drive Financial ("DFN") - to show cause why the action should not be remanded to state court (1) for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § ("Section") 1331 and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act ("MMWIA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312, and (2) as being removed in a defective manner under Sections 1446 and 1447 (dkt. entry no. 2); and DFN in response (1) "withdraw[ing] its Notice of Removal", and (2) advising the Court that "[c]counsel for Plaintiff and [DFN] have conferred and consent and agree to the remand of this matter to [state court]" (dkt. entry no. 4, 12-5-07 DFN Counsel Letter); and the Court determining that the order to show cause should be resolved before the return date; and thus the Court intending to (1) grant the order to show cause, and (2) remand the action to state court; and for good cause appearing, the Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

20071206

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.