Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BARRETO v. ESPERANZA FINANCIAL SERVICES

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division


September 17, 2004.

NEFTALI BARRETO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ESPERANZA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This action was timely removed to this District Court from the Circuit Court of Cook County by codefendant JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Bank"), with the consent of codefendant Esperanza Financial Services, Inc. ("Esperanza"), based on the premise that the claims asserted against Bank by plaintiffs Neftali and Jesusa Barreto (collectively "Barretos") were preempted by federal law. Barretos then promptly dismissed this action as to Bank, and their counsel has now served notice of the proposed presentment on September 27 of a motion to remand this action to the Circuit Court because no arguable predicate for federal jurisdiction now exists.

This Court has reviewed Barretos' Complaint, which specifies that the only claims advanced against Esperanza are grounded in state law rather than federal law (because Esperanza is not a bank, it has no basis for a preemption argument like that earlier advanced by Bank). And because Barretos and Esperanza share Illinois citizenship, of course diversity jurisdiction is also absent.

  If Esperanza's counsel has a different view as to how this action may arguably remain in this District Court rather than being remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1447(c), counsel must file a written statement as to the legal basis for that position in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course being transmitted contemporaneously to Barretos' counsel) on or before September 23, 2004. If not, Esperanza's counsel should just as promptly advise this Court and Barretos' counsel, so that remand may be ordered forthwith and the parties may then go about their business of litigating their substantive disputes.

20040917

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.