Oil Well Service Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
Decision Date | 04 August 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 69-993.,69-993. |
Citation | 302 F. Supp. 384 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Parties | OIL WELL SERVICE COMPANY, a corporation, Consolidated Oil Well Service Company, Plaintiffs, v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, subscribing to Insurance Policy No. MC74855, Defendants. |
Ball, Hunt, Hart & Brown by Clark Heggeness, Long Beach, Cal., for plaintiffs.
Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams & Charles, by David Brice Toy, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING REMAND
The plaintiffs' motion to remand this case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, was heard on July 22, 1969. Having heard the arguments of counsel, and being fully advised, it appears to the Court that this case was improperly removed in that the defendant waived its right to remove the case to the District Court.
Upon motion to remand to the State Court, the Federal Court is limited solely to the question of jurisdiction. Babb v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 102 F.Supp. 247 (D.C.S.C.1952). If Federal jurisdiction is doubtful, the case will be remanded. Wisseman v. LaChance, 209 F.Supp. 807, (D.C.N.C. 1962).
The plaintiffs are suing on a policy of insurance issued by defendant which provides, in part, as follows:
If such language were intended only to grant jurisdiction, it could simply have said that Underwriters agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of any court of conpetent jurisdiction. However, Underwriters added "at the request of the Assured." The plaintiffs requested defendant to submit to the jurisdiction of the State Court by filing their action therein. And, if there were any doubt as to such request, it was eliminated by the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the State Court after it was removed to the Federal District Court.
In addition, defendant agreed to comply with all requirements necessary to give s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colonial Bank & Trust Co. v. Cahill
...334 F.Supp. 1069 (S.D. N.Y. 1971); Perini Corp. v. Orion Ins. Co., 331 F.Supp. 453 (E.D. Cal. 1971); Oil Well Service Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, 302 F.Supp. 384 (C.D. Cal. 1969); Wilson v. Continental Casualty Co., 255 F.Supp. 622 (D. Mont. 1966). Each of these district court decisions......
-
Foster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., Ltd.
...334 F.Supp. 1069 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Perini Corp. v. Orion Ins. Co., 331 F.Supp. 453 (E.D.Cal.1971); Oil Well Serv. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 302 F.Supp. 384 (C.D.Cal.1969); Euzzino v. London & Edinburgh Ins. Co., 228 F.Supp. 431 (N.D.Ill.1964); General Phoenix Corp. v. Malyon, 88 ......
-
Appalachian Ins. Company v. Superior Court
...(E.D.Cal.1971) 331 F.Supp. 453; Wilson v. Continental Casualty Company (1966) 255 F.Supp. 622; Oil Well Service Company v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London (C.D.Cal.1969) 302 F.Supp. 384; Capital Bank & Trust v. Associated Intern. Ins. (1984) 576 F.Supp. 1522.5 For the same reason, we reject ......
-
Transit Cas. Co. in Receivership v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
...312 (E.D.Ky.1983); Lavan Petroleum Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 334 F.Supp. 1069 (S.D.N.Y.1971); Oil Well Serv. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 302 F.Supp. 384 (C.D.Cal.1969); Euzzino v. London & Edinburgh Ins. Co., 228 F.Supp. 431 (N.D.Ill.1964). This same authority is consiste......