John PASSARELLA, Bruno Petrella, and Joe Truland, individually and on behalf of a class or classes of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
The GINN COMPANY, Ginn Real Estate Company, LLC, and Ginn-LA University Club, Ltd., LLLP; L. Wendell Hahn II d/b/a/ Wendell Hahn & Associates; Jeff Laney, Phillip Urso, and The Urso Company, Inc.; Ann Petty and Southern Residential Appraisal Service, Inc.; Pope & Bowens, P.A.; and Richard Terrell Davis and Cameron, Davis & Gonzalez, PA, Defendants.
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
July 2, 2009.
July 2, 2009.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Arthur Camden Lewis, Peter D. Protopapas, Lewis and Babcock, William Dixon Robertson, III, Columbia, SC, Steven Randall Hood, William Jones Andrews, Jr., McGowan Hood and Felder, Rock Hill, SC, for Plaintiffs.
Alice W. W. Parham, Matthew T. Richardson, Wyches Burgess Freeman and Parham, Edward M. Woodward, Jr, Woodward Cothran and Herndon, David A. Anderson, Jocelyn Thraine Newman, Travis Wayne Vance, Richardson Plowden and Robinson, William Wharton Watkins, Sr., William W. Watkins Law Office, John Robert Murphy, Murphy and Grantland, Warren C. Powell, Jr., Wesley Dickinson Peel, Bruner Powell Robbins Wall and Mullins, Cravens Duval Ravenel, Baker Ravenel and Bender, Columbia, SC, John C. Moylan, III, Wyche Burgess Freeman and Parham, Greenville, SC, Catharine B. Wooten, Jeffrey K. Douglass, John P. MacNaughton, Robert P. Alpert, Morris Manning and Martin, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth Holland Howanitz, Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy and Ford, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants.
United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.
ORDER DENYING REMAND
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiffs' motion to remand. Plaintiff's request for remand is based on a provision of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSA")1 which prohibits removal of a case arising under Chapter 42 of Title 15 of the United States Code. Defendants oppose the motion for remand arguing that the provision of the Class Action...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
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.
