V ridge

Author: n | 2025-04-24

★★★★☆ (4.6 / 3038 reviews)

foxit pdf pdf reader editor with office doc and txt preview

Palo Alto – Ap – Cooley advised Ridge Ventures, an early-stage venture firm investing in software, on the closing of Ridge Ventures V, L.P. (Ridge V) and related entities at $180 million, its largest fund to date.Partner John Clendenin led the Cooley team. With the closing of Ridge V, Ridge’s total assets under management now exceed $540 million.

cool zipper lock screen

Ridge Ventures Closes $180 Million Ridge V Fund - Cooley

Join in the removal. See 167 F.3d at 1266 (removing party's notice of removal was facially deficient because it failed to explain why all co-defendants had not consented); Parking Concepts, Inc. v. RSUI Group, Inc. No. CV 09-5143 PSG (AJWx), 2009 WL 2973118, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2009) (remand granted because defendants did not mention rule of unanimity or explain any attempt to comply with it); Canterbury Lots 68 LLC v. Esposito, No. CV 5:11-01880 SVW (SSx), 2011 WL 6100967, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011) (removal granted because defendant offered no explanation for absence of co-defendants); Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. APL Co. Pte., No. CV 09-09323 MMM (VBKx), 2010 WL 960341, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010) (removing defendant failed to explain absence of defendants who never joined). Here, Ridge mentioned Cal Steam and Ferguson, but did not affirmatively explain its failure to obtain Cal Steam's and Ferguson's consent. In the NOR, Ridge explained as follows: According to the court's online docket, on August 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a proof of service of summon and complaint on defendant CAL STEAM, INC., aka CAL STEAM SUPPLY, aka WIA OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Cal Steam"), stating Cal Steam was served on July 28, 2020. Cal Steam has not yet made an appearance. Ridge Tool is unaware if defendant FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. has been served with the summons and complaint. (NOR ¶ 4.) In opposition, Ridge further explains that it could not have obtained Cal Steam's consent because it had no information regarding Cal Steam's representation, Cal Steam had not made an appearance, and it had only some evidence that Cal Steam was an inactive corporation that had merged with another one (e.g. Ridge did not know that Cal Steam had merged into Ferguson when the NOR was

Download data crow

Ridge Racer V - PCSX2 Wiki

Filed). (Dkt. No. 14-1, McNulty Decl., at ¶ 5.) Regarding Ferguson, Ridge explains that the state docket did not show proof of service for Ferguson when Ridge filed its notice of removal. Conroy counters that Ridge failed to exercise reasonable diligence, as a phone call to Conroy's counsel would have revealed that Cal Steam and Ferguson were served. This information should have been in the notice of removal. For the purposes of this ruling, Ridge's opposition is treated as an amendment to the notice of removal. See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 841 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 n.3 (1969)). Conroy does not persuade. Even if Ridge did not exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining whether Cal Steam and Ferguson were served, this is not fatal to removal because any resulting defect was cured when Cal Steam and Ferguson joined the notice of removal. See Prize, 167 F.3d at 1266 (because the removal notice was facially defective and the deficiencies uncured within the thirty-day statutory period, removal was improper) (emphasis added); Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703 (["A] procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court"); Loewen v. McDonnel, No. 19-cv-00467-YGR, 2019 WL 2364413, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (resulting defects from lack of reasonable diligence in confirming whether other defendants were served and inaccurate statements regarding whether other defendants were served were cured when consent was later obtained). In Prize, the Ninth Circuit was primarily concerned with the lack of unanimity, which was never cured: "the failure to adhere to the unanimity requirement rule is dispositive." 167 F.3d at 1266 n.4. -------- Accordingly, even if Ridge's explanation for why other defendants

Concrete Roof V Ridge - Cashbuild

(desktop CPU)Ryzen 5 1600X—Zen (14nm), Summit Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 7 1700—Zen (14nm), Summit Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 7 1700X—Zen (14nm), Summit Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 7 1800X—Zen (14nm), Summit Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen Threadripper 1900X—Zen (14nm), Whitehaven (HEDT)Ryzen Threadripper 1920X— Zen (14nm), Whitehaven (HEDT)Ryzen Threadripper 1950X—Zen (14nm), Whitehaven (HEDT)Athlon 200GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Athlon Pro 200GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Athlon 220GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Athlon 240GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 3 2200GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 3 Pro 2200GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 3 2200G—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 5 2400GE—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 5 2400G—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (desktop APU)Athlon Pro 200U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 3 2200U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 3 2300U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 3 Pro 2300U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 5 2500U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 5 Pro 2500U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 5 2600H—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 7 2700U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 7 Pro 2700U—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Ryzen 7 2800H—Zen (14nm), Raven Ridge (mobile APU)Now here's a list every second-generation Zen+ (12nm) processor to date:Ryzen 3 2300X—Zen+ (12nm), Pinnacle Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 5 2500X—Zen+ (12nm), Pinnacle Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 5 2600E—Zen+ (12nm), Pinnacle Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 5 2600—Zen+ (12nm), Pinnacle Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 7 2700E—Zen+ (12nm), Pinnacle Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 7 2700—Zen+ (12nm), Pinnacle Ridge (desktop CPU)Ryzen 7 Pro. Palo Alto – Ap – Cooley advised Ridge Ventures, an early-stage venture firm investing in software, on the closing of Ridge Ventures V, L.P. (Ridge V) and related entities at $180 million, its largest fund to date.Partner John Clendenin led the Cooley team. With the closing of Ridge V, Ridge’s total assets under management now exceed $540 million.

Pioneer / Hanson Thick V-Ridge

Case No. 4:20-cv-05882-YGR 11-18-2020 BRADLEY R. CONROY, Plaintiff, v. RIDGE TOOL COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 13 Plaintiff Bradley R. Conroy brings this action against defendants Ridge Tool Company, ("Ridge"), Cal Steam, Inc. ("Cal Steam"), and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. ("Ferguson") seeking damages for negligence and strict product liability. Conroy originally filed his complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on February 14, 2020. (Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal ("NOR") ¶ 1.) On August 20, 2020, Ridge removed the action to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction. (NOR ¶¶ 5-12.) Now before the Court is Conroy's motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 13 ("Remand").) Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court hereby DENIES Conroy's motion to remand. I. BACKGROUND Conroy served the three defendants on separate dates: Conroy served Ridge on July 24, 2020; Cal Steam on July 28, 2020; and Ferguson on August 7, 2020. (Remand at 5.) Ridge removed within thirty days after service of summons and the complaint. (NOR ¶ 3.) Ridge's notice of removal initially did not join Cal Steam or Ferguson. (Remand at 6.) On September 16, 2020, Ridge's counsel spoke with Ferguson's counsel, who told Ridge that Cal Steam was an affiliate of Ferguson. (Dkt. No. 14-1, McNulty Decl., ¶ 7.) On September 18, 2020, more than thirty days after Cal Steam and Ferguson were served, Ferguson's counsel filed joinders to Ridge's removal on behalf of both Ferguson and Cal Steam. (Id. (citing Dkt. Nos. 12, 12-1).) Conroy then filed this motion that same day, on September 18, 2020. With respect to the jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction, although the complaint does not specify an amount in controversy, Ridge asserts that the

Auguste v. Ridge et al

Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs. (NOR ¶ 12.) Conroy does not dispute the amount in controversy. Instead, the parties disagree regarding whether there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. It is undisputed that Conroy is a citizen of the United States, domiciled in California; Ridge is incorporated in Ohio with its principal place of business in the same state; and Ferguson is incorporated in Virginia with its place of business in the same state. (See id. at ¶¶ 7-9.) The parties differ on Cal Steam. Conroy alleges that Cal Steam "was and is a corporation existing and doing business in California." (Dkt. No. 1-1, Complaint ("Compl.") at Exh. 1 ¶ 4.) Ridge avers that Cal Steam is a non-existing corporation due to a merger around December 31, 2015. (NOR ¶ 10.) Ridge further asserts that prior to the merger Cal Steam was incorporated in Virginia with its principal place of business in the same state. (Id.) II. LEGAL STANDARD "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction" when evaluating a motion to remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The party seeking removal "has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that removal is proper." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citation omitted). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

Ridge Racer V Guide - IGN

Reed Cottage is a cabin in Red Dead Redemption 2 and Red Dead Online in the Roanoke Ridge region of the New Hanover territory.Contents1 Description2 Items2.1 Unique Items3 NavigationDescription[]The cottage consists of a wooden bungalow situated in Roanoke Ridge, New Hanover. The house has a green front door, with orange accents scattered around the structure, such as the eaves of the roof and the shutters of the windows.A few feet in front of the cabin is a small, wooden well with a winch for the bucket. To the right of the structure lie the remains of an outhouse, with the only remnants being the derelict, wooden frame.Items[]1 x Assorted Biscuits1 x Crackers1 x Ground Coffee1 x Hair Pomade1 x Miracle TonicUnique Items[]Sketched Map - Hidden in the fireplace.Navigation[]v • d • eLocations in Red Dead Redemption 2 and Red Dead OnlineAmbarinoAdler Ranch • Barrow Lagoon • Beartooth Beck • Cairn Lake • Cairn Lodge • Calumet Ravine • Cattail Pond • Chez Porter • Clawson's Rest • Colter • Cotorra Springs • Deadboot Creek • Dodd's Bluff • Donner Falls • Dormin Crest • Ewing Basin • Fairvale Shanty • Flattened Cabin • Glacier • Granite Pass • Grizzlies East • Grizzlies West • Lake Isabella • Martha's Swain • Micah's Hideout** • Millesani Claim • Moonstone Pond • Mount Hagen • Mysterious Hill Home • O'Creagh's Run • Planters Baun • Spider Gorge • Tempest Rim • The Loft • Three Sisters • Wapiti Indian Reservation • Whinyard Strait • Window Rock • Witches Cauldron • Veteran's HomesteadNew HanoverAbandoned Trading Post • Annesburg • Bacchus Station • Beaver Hollow • Black Balsam Rise • Brandywine Drop • Butcher Creek • Caliban's Seat • Carmody Dell • Castor's Ridge • Chadwick Farm • Citadel Rock • Cornwall Kerosene & Tar • Cumberland Falls • Cumberland Forest • Deer Cottage • Doverhill • Downes Ranch • Elysian Pool • Emerald Ranch • Emerald Station • Fire Lookout Tower • Firwood Rise • Flatneck Station • Fort Brennand • Fort Wallace • Gill Landing • Granger's Hoggery • Guthrie Farm • Hani's

V Ridge - Concrete - Identi-Vin

Because Ridge did not explain the absence of other defendants. Ridge counters that the defect was cured. "Where fewer than all defendants have joined in a removal action, the removing party has the burden . . . to explain affirmatively the absence of any co-defendants in the notice of removal." Prize, 167 F.3d at 1266. If the removal notice is facially defective and the deficiencies remain uncured within the thirty-day period permitted for joinder, removal is improper. Id., but see Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703 ("[A] procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court"); Destfino, 630 F.3d at 956-57 (noting that if all defendants who have been served have not joined in removal, "the district court may allow the removing defendants to cure the defect by obtaining joinder of all defendants prior to the entry of judgment"); Kacludis v. GTE Sprint Commc'ns Corp., 806 F. Supp. 866, 869 (N.D. Cal. 1992) ("[In the Ninth Circuit] . . . defects in form of a removal petition are amendable at any time, not just within the original 30-day period for removal") (citing Barrow Dev. Co. v. Fulton Ins. Co., 418 F.2d 316, 317 (9th Cir. 1969)); Ireland v. Centralbanc Mortg. Corp., No. 5:12-cv-02991-EJD, 2012 WL 4181418, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) ("a clear statement in the Notice of Removal [explaining absence of co-defendants] could have prevented this motion altogether. But the shortcomings in jurisdictional allegations is not fatal . . . because they can be easily cured by amendment"). Prize did not provide a standard for evaluating the sufficiency of an explanation. Some courts, however, remand when there is no mention at all of the non-joining defendants and when co-defendants never. Palo Alto – Ap – Cooley advised Ridge Ventures, an early-stage venture firm investing in software, on the closing of Ridge Ventures V, L.P. (Ridge V) and related entities at $180 million, its largest fund to date.Partner John Clendenin led the Cooley team. With the closing of Ridge V, Ridge’s total assets under management now exceed $540 million. Ridge Ventures V General Information Description. Ridge Ventures V is a 2025 vintage early-stage venture capital fund managed by Ridge Ventures. The fund is located in San Francisco, California.

Download paradox data editor

V-Ridge Each - Cem Brick

Up to 200% longer belt life (compared to standard Gates products), Gates data center cooling solutions can keep your data rooms cool and efficient all day long. Quad-Power 4 is the go-to bandless v-belt for HVAC needs like air handling units. LEARN MORE ABOUT QUAD-POWER 4 DIRECT-TO-CHIP LIQUID COOLING Our ThermalPro Electric Water Pumps can be made to your specifications to support In-rack and In-row Cooling Distribution Units of all shapes and sizes. Talk to one of our product application experts about your systems size and power needs today. Previous / Next OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORYThe Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a federally-funded research and development center located in eastern Tennessee. The ORNL features the Summit SuperComputer, which was installed in 2018 as the fastest computer in the world at the time, performing at 200,000 trillion calculations per second. Summit features IBM servers which are cooled by Gates Data Center Cooling Hoses.SEE OUR HOSES IN ACTION ROOFTOP AIR HANDLING UNITS (AHUs)With up to a 30% increase in power capacity and up to 200% longer belt life (compared to standard Gates products), Gates data center cooling solutions can keep your data rooms cool and efficient all day long. Quad-Power 4 is the go-to bandless v-belt for HVAC needs like air handling units. LEARN MORE ABOUT QUAD-POWER 4 DIRECT-TO-CHIP LIQUID COOLING Our ThermalPro Electric Water Pumps can be made to your specifications to support In-rack and In-row Cooling Distribution Units of all shapes and sizes. Talk to one of our product application

Veronica V Ridge Reels - Facebook

Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-2 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Cinnabar Hills Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 San Jose, CA, 95141 Cinnabar Hills Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 San Jose, CA, 95141 18 Holes 1-2 Golfers Cart Cinnabar Hills Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 San Jose, CA,. Palo Alto – Ap – Cooley advised Ridge Ventures, an early-stage venture firm investing in software, on the closing of Ridge Ventures V, L.P. (Ridge V) and related entities at $180 million, its largest fund to date.Partner John Clendenin led the Cooley team. With the closing of Ridge V, Ridge’s total assets under management now exceed $540 million. Ridge Ventures V General Information Description. Ridge Ventures V is a 2025 vintage early-stage venture capital fund managed by Ridge Ventures. The fund is located in San Francisco, California.

The Ridge - V A Waterfront / StudioMAS - ArchDaily

Fore! We don't currently offer tee times that match your criteria. You can contact CordeValle directly at (408) 695-4590 to inquire about the tee time you're looking for. In the meantime, here are the nearby tee times we found. Tee Time offers near CordeValle Hot Deals First Price Lowest to Highest Time Gilroy Golf Course - Indoor Simulator Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Hot Deals - Prepaid Time Gilroy Golf Course Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Hot Deals - Prepaid Time Gilroy Golf Course Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Hot Deals - Prepaid Time Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-2 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-2 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club Monday, March 24, 2025 Gilroy, CA, 95020 18 Holes 1-4 Golfers Cart Eagle Ridge Golf Club

Comments

User7673

Join in the removal. See 167 F.3d at 1266 (removing party's notice of removal was facially deficient because it failed to explain why all co-defendants had not consented); Parking Concepts, Inc. v. RSUI Group, Inc. No. CV 09-5143 PSG (AJWx), 2009 WL 2973118, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2009) (remand granted because defendants did not mention rule of unanimity or explain any attempt to comply with it); Canterbury Lots 68 LLC v. Esposito, No. CV 5:11-01880 SVW (SSx), 2011 WL 6100967, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2011) (removal granted because defendant offered no explanation for absence of co-defendants); Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. APL Co. Pte., No. CV 09-09323 MMM (VBKx), 2010 WL 960341, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010) (removing defendant failed to explain absence of defendants who never joined). Here, Ridge mentioned Cal Steam and Ferguson, but did not affirmatively explain its failure to obtain Cal Steam's and Ferguson's consent. In the NOR, Ridge explained as follows: According to the court's online docket, on August 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a proof of service of summon and complaint on defendant CAL STEAM, INC., aka CAL STEAM SUPPLY, aka WIA OF CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Cal Steam"), stating Cal Steam was served on July 28, 2020. Cal Steam has not yet made an appearance. Ridge Tool is unaware if defendant FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. has been served with the summons and complaint. (NOR ¶ 4.) In opposition, Ridge further explains that it could not have obtained Cal Steam's consent because it had no information regarding Cal Steam's representation, Cal Steam had not made an appearance, and it had only some evidence that Cal Steam was an inactive corporation that had merged with another one (e.g. Ridge did not know that Cal Steam had merged into Ferguson when the NOR was

2025-04-23
User3107

Filed). (Dkt. No. 14-1, McNulty Decl., at ¶ 5.) Regarding Ferguson, Ridge explains that the state docket did not show proof of service for Ferguson when Ridge filed its notice of removal. Conroy counters that Ridge failed to exercise reasonable diligence, as a phone call to Conroy's counsel would have revealed that Cal Steam and Ferguson were served. This information should have been in the notice of removal. For the purposes of this ruling, Ridge's opposition is treated as an amendment to the notice of removal. See Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 841 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 n.3 (1969)). Conroy does not persuade. Even if Ridge did not exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining whether Cal Steam and Ferguson were served, this is not fatal to removal because any resulting defect was cured when Cal Steam and Ferguson joined the notice of removal. See Prize, 167 F.3d at 1266 (because the removal notice was facially defective and the deficiencies uncured within the thirty-day statutory period, removal was improper) (emphasis added); Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703 (["A] procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court"); Loewen v. McDonnel, No. 19-cv-00467-YGR, 2019 WL 2364413, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2019) (resulting defects from lack of reasonable diligence in confirming whether other defendants were served and inaccurate statements regarding whether other defendants were served were cured when consent was later obtained). In Prize, the Ninth Circuit was primarily concerned with the lack of unanimity, which was never cured: "the failure to adhere to the unanimity requirement rule is dispositive." 167 F.3d at 1266 n.4. -------- Accordingly, even if Ridge's explanation for why other defendants

2025-03-30
User7245

Case No. 4:20-cv-05882-YGR 11-18-2020 BRADLEY R. CONROY, Plaintiff, v. RIDGE TOOL COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND Re: Dkt. No. 13 Plaintiff Bradley R. Conroy brings this action against defendants Ridge Tool Company, ("Ridge"), Cal Steam, Inc. ("Cal Steam"), and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. ("Ferguson") seeking damages for negligence and strict product liability. Conroy originally filed his complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, on February 14, 2020. (Dkt. No. 1, Notice of Removal ("NOR") ¶ 1.) On August 20, 2020, Ridge removed the action to this Court asserting diversity jurisdiction. (NOR ¶¶ 5-12.) Now before the Court is Conroy's motion to remand. (Dkt. No. 13 ("Remand").) Having carefully considered the pleadings and the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court hereby DENIES Conroy's motion to remand. I. BACKGROUND Conroy served the three defendants on separate dates: Conroy served Ridge on July 24, 2020; Cal Steam on July 28, 2020; and Ferguson on August 7, 2020. (Remand at 5.) Ridge removed within thirty days after service of summons and the complaint. (NOR ¶ 3.) Ridge's notice of removal initially did not join Cal Steam or Ferguson. (Remand at 6.) On September 16, 2020, Ridge's counsel spoke with Ferguson's counsel, who told Ridge that Cal Steam was an affiliate of Ferguson. (Dkt. No. 14-1, McNulty Decl., ¶ 7.) On September 18, 2020, more than thirty days after Cal Steam and Ferguson were served, Ferguson's counsel filed joinders to Ridge's removal on behalf of both Ferguson and Cal Steam. (Id. (citing Dkt. Nos. 12, 12-1).) Conroy then filed this motion that same day, on September 18, 2020. With respect to the jurisdictional requirements for diversity jurisdiction, although the complaint does not specify an amount in controversy, Ridge asserts that the

2025-03-29
User5976

Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs. (NOR ¶ 12.) Conroy does not dispute the amount in controversy. Instead, the parties disagree regarding whether there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties. It is undisputed that Conroy is a citizen of the United States, domiciled in California; Ridge is incorporated in Ohio with its principal place of business in the same state; and Ferguson is incorporated in Virginia with its place of business in the same state. (See id. at ¶¶ 7-9.) The parties differ on Cal Steam. Conroy alleges that Cal Steam "was and is a corporation existing and doing business in California." (Dkt. No. 1-1, Complaint ("Compl.") at Exh. 1 ¶ 4.) Ridge avers that Cal Steam is a non-existing corporation due to a merger around December 31, 2015. (NOR ¶ 10.) Ridge further asserts that prior to the merger Cal Steam was incorporated in Virginia with its principal place of business in the same state. (Id.) II. LEGAL STANDARD "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction" when evaluating a motion to remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The party seeking removal "has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that removal is proper." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Est. of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citation omitted). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

2025-03-28
User7860

Because Ridge did not explain the absence of other defendants. Ridge counters that the defect was cured. "Where fewer than all defendants have joined in a removal action, the removing party has the burden . . . to explain affirmatively the absence of any co-defendants in the notice of removal." Prize, 167 F.3d at 1266. If the removal notice is facially defective and the deficiencies remain uncured within the thirty-day period permitted for joinder, removal is improper. Id., but see Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703 ("[A] procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court"); Destfino, 630 F.3d at 956-57 (noting that if all defendants who have been served have not joined in removal, "the district court may allow the removing defendants to cure the defect by obtaining joinder of all defendants prior to the entry of judgment"); Kacludis v. GTE Sprint Commc'ns Corp., 806 F. Supp. 866, 869 (N.D. Cal. 1992) ("[In the Ninth Circuit] . . . defects in form of a removal petition are amendable at any time, not just within the original 30-day period for removal") (citing Barrow Dev. Co. v. Fulton Ins. Co., 418 F.2d 316, 317 (9th Cir. 1969)); Ireland v. Centralbanc Mortg. Corp., No. 5:12-cv-02991-EJD, 2012 WL 4181418, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) ("a clear statement in the Notice of Removal [explaining absence of co-defendants] could have prevented this motion altogether. But the shortcomings in jurisdictional allegations is not fatal . . . because they can be easily cured by amendment"). Prize did not provide a standard for evaluating the sufficiency of an explanation. Some courts, however, remand when there is no mention at all of the non-joining defendants and when co-defendants never

2025-04-21

Add Comment