The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants including several “citizens” of California. Four days before trial defendant John Crane Inc. removed the case to federal court on diversity. The plaintiff then moved to remand.
The court began its analysis by stating the legal standard for removal which permits removal when the federal court could have “exercised original jurisdiction” in the case. Additionally, the burden falls upon the removing defendant. A case may be removed under diversity unless one of the parties is a properly joined and served defendant of that state. A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of service of paper from which the removing defendant could “ascertain” that the case is removable.
The defendant took the position that it was not aware that the case was removable until after “Plaintiff served and filed their Trial Brief” which showed only non-Californian defendants. The plaintiffs argued that removal was precluded since it occurred more than “one year after commencement” of the action. The defendant argued that the one year requirement should not be applied because the plaintiffs acted in bad faith in joining California citizens that the plaintiffs knew that did “not have facts to succeed on any of the claims against those California defendants.” In reliance of this argument, defendant pointed that the plaintiff confirmed in his deposition that he did not know one of the California defendants, Thomas Dee Engineering “Dee”, although the plaintiff kept Dee in the case until after the one year deadline. In the plaintiffs’ reply to the Motion to Remand, the plaintiffs asserted that Dee was dismissed after it paid settlement to the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiff stated that the basis for naming Dee was that it was a boiler contractor on a navy ship on which the plaintiff was a boiler tender. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not act in bad faith and remanded the case.
As for the plaintiffs fees and costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to submit a stipulated request for a specific amount. In the alternative, the court would take the matter under submission should the parties contest costs.