Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles et al
Filing
19
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Audrey B. Collins. The defect in the Notice of Removal has not been cured and removal is improper. The Court therefore REMANDS this case from the state court from which it was removed. Case number BC498168 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-1658 ABC (DTBx)
Title
Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles et al
Present: The Honorable
Date
April 9, 2013
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge
Angela Bridges
None Present
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present
None Present
Proceedings:
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
(In Chambers)
Defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“County
Defendants”) filed their Notice of Removal removing this action from state court on March 8, 2013. As
of the date of this order, defendant Kenneth Alexander has not joined in or consented to the removal.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), all defendants must join in a removal in order for that removal
to be proper. 28 U.S.C.§ 1446(b)(2)(A) (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a),
all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the
action.”). “Where fewer than all the defendants have joined in a removal action, the removing party has
the burden under section 1446(a) to explain affirmatively the absence of any co-defendants in the notice
for removal.” Prize Frize v. Matrix, 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999) (superceded by statute on
other grounds). In the absence of an explanation, a “removal notice is defective,” and if that “[defect is]
uncured within the thirty-day statutory period,” removal is improper. Id.
In their Removal Notice, the County Defendants explain that they were “exempt from the
requirement that all defendants join in the notice of removal” because Alexander had not been served
with the Complaint. Notice of Removal ¶ 3. This assertion is incorrect, however, because the record
reflects that Alexander was served with the Complaint and Summons on February 10, 2013. As such,
Alexander’s non-joinder in removal remains unexplained and the Notice of Removal is defective.
See Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Foss Mar. Co., C 02-3936 MJJ, 2002 WL 31414315 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2002)
(where explanation for failing to join all defendants was invalid, the failure to join was unexplained and
the removal notice was defective; case remanded).
//
//
//
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-1658 ABC (DTBx)
Date
Title
April 9, 2013
Jane Doe v. County of Los Angeles et al
In their Reply, County Defendants state that at the time of removal, they were not aware that
Alexander had been served, and that they did not learn this fact until March 8, 2013, after the removal
was filed. See Reply 6:25-28. However, insofar as County Defendants may have had a thirty-day
statutory period from the time of removal to cure this defect, that period lapsed on April 8. As such, the
defect in the Notice of Removal has not been cured and removal is improper. The Court therefore
REMANDS this case from the state court from which is was removed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
AB
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?