Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 82.7 kB
Pages: 4
Date: January 13, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 774 Words, 5,002 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35985/21-5.pdf

Download Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware ( 82.7 kB)


Preview Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :05-cv—00?.1g1—JJF Document 21 -5 Filed O1!] 2/2006 Page 1 of 4
., — . " l kk//1 kw/J! l
l F`il.ijTt3 §¤‘r_,_, Ogg DC,
_ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ` " ‘”‘ ‘ *
WESTERN nrsrnrcr or TENNESSEE 2ttE SEP -2 Pit 1 ; g 2
WESTERN DIVISION . I ' 4
l ) A it Tl il
Corey Wiles, individually and on behalf of ) _ ‘ QL§ill{, JQT
himself and all persons similarly situated, ) . e lfiilli GF n
) .
Plaintifi ) ~ y i
) Civil Action No. ._2:05—cv-02605-IDB
v. ) ~
) (State Civil Action No. CT 3801-05
INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware ) Div. IV) `
corporation, ) __ __
) E ::· r s 1 A
Defendant. ) -
-
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
TO DEFENDANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff hereby moves the-Court for an·Order remanding
this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, to the Circuit Court of Shelby County, State of Tennessee,
on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action as the named Plaintiff does not seek
damages in excess of $5 ,000,000 and on the grounds that no independent federal jurisdiction exists
allowing this action to be heard in Federal Court.
This Motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities and on
the papers, records, and pleadings on tile herein. A [Proposed] Order is attached.
GLASSMAN, EDW `, S, WADE I
&WYATT/,. E t I e
{ Si
i.ii¥YZw"QY""ZimZT"“",`§`“`TTT“”’}i“’"‘Ti_7‘s‘ii··. ” i , . /,,--·/
<; it iii it .5 , Ei ’ fi » ·‘ ~ ·.-» “ ‘
Yi!-.....f.....L_.J_,w2_____,?;1_T By: 1,_· ;,.·»;;~_,.»;j,·’ 3 p · .“I_,,»’
BT°J.,Wade# 8 ’ V
,j;3,§-3 1 Q. @{,*5 ,;,,9* 26 North Second Street
f { , ‘ Memphis TN 38103
e =-~·—-»-mm-E-i...-...v-m,a---_i _
. 1
ma.; .·..

Case 1:05-cv—OO{9J\4—JJF Document 21-5 Filed O/11122/2006 Page 2 of 4
‘ ‘ ‘ aeaaa z
_ l l _ l _ Telephone: 901.527.4673 .-
. OF COUNSEL: l p . .
` Ii William M. Arma. I A
. Michael A. Mc_Shane . _ _ `
ALEXANDER, HAWES & AUDET LLP
152 North Third Street, Suite 600
San Jose CA 95112
Telephone: 4082891776
Fax: 408.287.1776
5 Ryan M. Hagan
ALEXANDER, HAWES & AUDET LLP
152 North Third Street, Suite 600 `
_ San Jose CA_95112
_ Fax: 408.287.1776 .
CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION · . 5
. Pursuant to W.D. TENN. CIV. R. 7.2(a)(1)(B), I affirm that on August 29, 2005, I consulted
with Jef Feib elman, Counsel for Defendant Intel Corporation, regarding the action requested by this
Motion. We were unable to agree on this Motion.
Jin"?
jqff /°/it ·$°}//tt;
rt; . .-·‘i Ny .»‘‘`’
f ..Jfrr . r»·r· *
B.J.W,Q A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A ; I -
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been properly
served electronically via email transmission and U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, this 21 day of
September, 2005 , upon the following:
J ef Feibelman, Esq.
Burch, Porter & Johnson
130 North Court Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103

Case 1:05-cv—OO9j . · , =:`\-U-/j {kar-vii n
Richard Ripley, Esq.
Bingham & McCutehen" 1
1120 20th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C..20036
. J 1i»~r , .1.» r .1
B. J. Vvhdé R
3

Case 1:05-cv—OOg1\4—JJF Document 21-5 Filed 0/]./1:2/2006 Page 4 of 4
I I I i I\ r,_a. /I i Ig,./i
. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION _
1 .
C_orey Wiles, individually and on behalf of ) ' I I
_ himself and all persons similarly situated, ) · ` ‘
) I I .
Plaintifi ) I I _
_ ) Civil Action No. 2:05-cv-02605-JDB
V- I ) 4 I i
) (State Civil Action No. CT 3801-05 ‘
INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware ) Div. IV)
corporation, I)
)
Defendant. )
I A [PROPOSED] ORDER
THIS COURT, having reviewed the Plaintiffs Motion and Memorandum in Support of
Motion to Remand, the Defendant's Notice of Removal and Statement of Facts. and Authorities in
Support of Removal and having reviewed the operative Complaint, grants Plaintiffs Motion to
Remand this action to Circuit Court of Shelby County, State of Tennessee. Plaintiffs Complaint
does not allege any claim under Federal Law. Based on the nature of the claims, the amount in
controversy is less than the $5,000,000 minimum jurisdictional amount required for this Court to
retain jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § l332(d)(2). I ‘ I I
Accordingly, this action shall be immediately remandedIto the Circuit Court _for ShelbIy
County, Tennessee. The.Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed to remand this action to the Circuit
Court of Shelby County, State of Tennessee. I I I
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August , 2005
Judge, United States District Court