Mpock v. FCA US LLC
Mpock v. FCA US LLC
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9
10 EMMANUEL C. MPOCK, No. 1:21-cv-00330-NONE-SAB
11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 12 RECOMMENDATIONS v. 13 (Doc. Nos. 11, 25) FCA US, LLC, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On March 27, 2020, plaintiff Emannuel Mpock, who is represented by counsel, initiated 18 this action against FCA and Central Valley in the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-2.) 19 On February 2, 2021, plaintiff dismissed Central Valley from this action. (Doc. No. 1-6.) On 20 March 4, 2021, FCA, as sole remaining defendant, removed this action to this federal court. (Doc. 21 No. 1.) On April 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court. (Doc. No. 22 11.) 23 On November 17, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations recommending that the motion for remand be denied. (Doc. No. 25.) The 25 parties were granted fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the findings and 26 recommendation. (Id.) On December 1, 2021, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and 27 recommendations, which have been considered by the court. (Doc. No. 26.) Defendant responded 28 to those objections on December 14, 2021. (Doc. No. 28.) 1 Plaintiff's objections restate arguments considered and addressed in the pending findings 2 | and recommendations and those objections fail to establish any flaws with the magistrate judge’s 3 | reasoning. In accordance with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has 4] conducted a de novo review of the case. The court finds that the recommendation is supported by 5 | the record and proper analysis.! 6 Accordingly, 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued November 11, 2021 (Doc. No. 25) are 8 adopted; and 9 2. Plaintiff's motion to remand (Doc. No. 11) is denied. 10 ll IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ 12 Dated: _ December 15, 2021 Da 1D, B UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' The court notes that the citizenship of defendant FCA US, as a limited liability company, is that of its members. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP,
437 F.3d 894, 899(9th Cir. 2006).
Reference
- Status
- Unknown