Summary
finding that while a removing defendant may indicate consent of other defendants pursuant to Ninth Circuit precedent in Proctor, the removing defendant had not sufficiently indicated consent when notice of removal asserted that "[u]pon information and belief, [other defendant] will not object to removal if or when the Complaint has been properly served upon it"
Summary of this case from Szuszalski v. FieldsOpinion
CIVIL 15-00387-ACK-KSC
01-05-2016
PIONEER ASSET INVESTMENT LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. ARLIE & COMPANY; CV HOLDINGS LLC; JOHN DOES 1-50, JANE DOES 1-50; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-50; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-50; DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-50, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Findings and Recommendation having been filed and served on all parties on December 14, 2015, and no objections having been filed by any party,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2, the "FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND ACTION REMOVED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAII," docket entry no. 24, are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 5, 2016.
/s/_________
Alan C. Kay
Sr. United States District Judge