Gracier v. Edwards Dental Supply Co., 29055H.
| Decision Date | 18 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 29055H.,29055H. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | GRACIER v. EDWARDS DENTAL SUPPLY CO. |
Paul B. Gibson, San Francisco, Cal., attorney for plaintiff.
McCutchen, Thomas, Matthew, Griffiths & Greene by James D. Adams, Walker W. Lowry, Philip A. Ray, San Francisco Cal., attorneys for defendant.
Plaintiff initiated an action in the Superior Court of the State of California against defendant seeking declaratory relief and reformation of his contract with defendant. In accordance with Title 28, U.S.C.A. § 1446, defendant had the action removed to this Court. Thereafter, defendant filed its answer and brought the matter to issue.
Plaintiff has moved the Court to remand the action to the Superior Court on the ground that the District Court lacks jurisdiction. In actions brought to the Federal Courts on diversity grounds the amount in controversy must exceed "$3,000 exclusive of interest and costs".1 Plaintiff contends that neither this amount nor any other amount is at issue in the present litigation which is limited simply to the Court's construction of a contract2 entered into between plaintiff and defendant.
In opposing plaintiff's motion to remand, defendant asserts that the Court's interpretation of the contract will of necessity involve disposition of a sum of money far in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount. Defendant contends that, under the terms of the contract, plaintiff is entitled to receive a salary of $1,000 per month for a period of ten years, plus a certain percentage of the profits realized by the corporation for whom he is to be employed as General Manager. Under these circumstances, defendant argues that jurisdictional grounds exist for the District Court to retain the case. Defendant further asserts that subsequent to the removal of the action to the District Court, plaintiff was discharged from his position with defendant and that plaintiff's right to his entire salary is now in issue before the Court.
The controversy may be resolved by confining the dispute to the period when the action was removed to the District Court. Facts and events which have occurred subsequently are immaterial in this remand proceeding.
When defendant removed the cause of action, on the ground of diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount, the complaint alone was on file in the Superior Court. Accordingly, plaintiff's pleadings must of necessity set forth the alleged facts upon which this Court must make its ruling on the motion.
No question is raised as to the validity or the effectiveness of the contract, nor is any monetary sum involved, nor a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canesco v. Ford Motor Co.
...a motion to remand to state court is the four corners of the operative complaint at the time of removal. Gracier v. Edwards Dental Supply Co. , 86 F. Supp. 956, 957-58 (N.D. Cal. 1949) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ; St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co. , 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, ......
-
Ameranth, Inc. v. Chownow, Inc.
... ... See Minnesota Mining & Mfg ... Co. v. Norton Co., 929 F.2d 670, 672 (Fed. Cir ... Grader v. Edwards Dental Supply Co., 86 F.Supp. 956, ... ...
-
Valdez v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.
... ... and litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, ... 254-55 (1936). A stay ... Grader v. Edwards Dental Supply Co., 86 F.Supp. 956, ... ...
-
Canesco v. Ford Motor Co.
...to remand to state court is the four corners of the operative complaint at the time of removal. Gracier v. Edwards Dental Supply Co., 86 F.Supp. 956, 957-58 (N.D. Cal. 1949) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 308 U.S. 283 (1939)). IV. DISCUSSION Plai......