ASPIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. ECC CENTCOM CONSTRUCTORS LLC

Case No. 17-cv-00224-YGR.

ASPIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ECC CENTCOM CONSTRUCTORS LLC, ET IN SUPPORT FOR THE COURT AL., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Petition for Removal
Nature of Suit: 896 Other Statutes: Arbitration
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Aspic Engineering and Construction Company, Plaintiff, represented by Walt Pennington , Pennington Law Firm.

ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Azarmi , Dentons US LLP.

ECC International LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Azarmi , Dentons US LLP.


ORDER DENYING STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE AND SETTING HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 16

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

The Court is in receipt of the Parties' Joint Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to File Response and Setting Hearing ("Stipulation"). (Dkt. No. 16). While the Court is not opposed to the proposed briefing schedule, it does not believe that it can agree with paragraph 7 that the Court shall "correct, modify or vacate the judgment that was entered in the Superior Court to conform with the decision of this Court." (Dkt. No. 16 at 3.) See, e.g., Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) ("After removal, the federal court takes the case up where the State court left it off. . . . Consequently, an order entered by a state court should be treated as though it had been validly rendered in the federal proceeding." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Resolution Trust Corp. v. BVS Dev., Inc., 42 F.3d 1206, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 1994) ("It is settled that a federal court must take a case as it finds it on removal, requiring a district court to treat a prior state judgment as though it had been validly rendered in a federal proceeding." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Butner v. Neustadter, 324 F.2d 783, 785-86 (9th Cir. 1963) ("The federal court takes the case as it finds it on removal and treats everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court.")

Here, despite the language of the Stipulation, it appears that the state court's order entering judgment on the arbitration award stated that respondents/defendants responded. Then, they attempted to move to vacate the judgment in the state court by an ex parte motion, but the ex parte motion was denied because it needed to be filed as a noticed motion. Rather than file a noticed motion, respondents/defendants removed.

Given the current procedural posture of this action, the parties' Stipulation is DENIED. By February 24, 2017, the parties must file an updated stipulation. The Court SETS a compliance hearing for Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:01 a.m. regarding submission of the updated stipulation. If compliance is complete, the compliance hearing may be vacated and the parties need not appear.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases