Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. Maison Reeves Homeowners Association et al, No. 2:2017cv01704 - Document 13 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company's Motion to Remand 8 and DENIES its request for an award of costs and expenses. The clerk shall remand this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC614531, and close the case. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company v. Maison Reeves Homeowners Association et al Doc. 13 1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. 17-CV-1704-AB (GJSx) IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MAISON REEVES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company’s 20 (“Ironshore”) Motion to Remand, filed March 24, 2017. (Dkt. No. 8.) Defendant 21 Everest Indemnity Insurance Company (“Everest”) filed an opposition on April 3, 22 2017, and Ironshore filed a reply on April 10, 2017. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) Having 23 carefully considered the arguments and materials submitted, the Court deems this 24 motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See C.D. L.R. 7-15. For the 25 following reasons, the Court GRANTS Ironshore’s motion and remands the case to 26 Los Angeles County Superior Court. 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND This case arises from alleged construction defects in a condominium 3 development located at 261 Reeves Drive in Beverly Hills, California. (Dkt. No. 1-1, 4 Notice of Removal (“NOR”) Ex. A at 5, 7.) The Maison Reeves Homeowners’ 5 Association (“HOA”) originally sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court the 6 developer, Pacific Northstar Reeves (“PNR”), and various contractors and 7 subcontractors, including Avoca USA, Inc. (“Avoca”), for the defects (hereinafter 8 referred to as “the defect cases” or “the construction defect cases”). (See id. at 208.) 9 Some defendants in the defect cases are citizens of California, including Pacific 10 Northstar Property Group, LLC, a defendant not named in the coverage action. (Id. at 11 209.) Ironshore intervened in these construction defect cases as the insurer for PNR 12 and Avoca, entities which at some point had their corporate statuses suspended by the 13 state of California. 14 On March 22, 2016, Ironshore filed a separate action alleging eighteen causes 15 of action for declaratory relief against Thomas Henry Coleman,1 PNR, Avoca, the 16 HOA as a third-party claimant to the insurance policies, and Everest. Ironshore 17 sought a judicial determination of the rights and duties of Everest and Ironshore as 18 insurers under various insurance agreements related to the construction of the Reeves 19 property (hereinafter referred to as “the coverage case”). On June 10, 2016, the court 20 consolidated this case with the construction defect cases. (Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR Ex. A 21 at 2062.) The order specifically stated, “The Court finds BC558992, BC610856 and 22 BC614431 related within the meaning of CA Rule of Court 3.300. Cases are ordered 23 transferred forthwith to Department 62, Judge Michael Stern. The Court further 24 orders the cases consolidated this date. Case BC558992 is designated to be the lead 25 1 26 27 28 Thomas Henry Coleman was appointed receiver for the Reeves property and was later effectively deemed immune from suit by the receivership court. (See Dkt. No. 11, Ex. A at 174.) In light of the receivership order, Coleman was dismissed from the defect and coverage actions. (See Dkt. No. 1-3, NOR Ex. A at 653; Dkt. No. 1-10, NOR Ex. A at 2280.) 2 1 2 case. No further pleadings shall be filed in cases BC610856 and BC614431.” (Id.) The parties engaged in extensive motion practice in the coverage portion of the 3 consolidated action. Everest filed a demurrer, which the court overruled. (Dkt. No. 1- 4 9, NOR Ex. A at 2066.) At that time, the court set a trial date for April 24, 2017. 5 (Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR Ex. A at 2085.) Among other motions in the coverage action, 6 Ironshore filed a motion for summary adjudication, and Everest filed a motion for 7 summary judgment. (See Dkt. No. 1-5, NOR Ex. A at 946-98; Dkt. No. 1-8, NOR Ex. 8 A at 1756.) At no point did Everest challenge the consolidation order. 9 In addition, the HOA filed a motion to bifurcate the coverage action and trial 10 from the construction defect actions and trial and argued the defect actions should 11 proceed to trial before the coverage action. (Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR Ex. A at 2138-39.) In 12 response, Ironshore filed a motion to bifurcate the actions and order separate trials, but 13 argued instead the coverage action should proceed to trial before the defect actions. 14 (See Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR Ex. A at 2090.) On February 2, 2017, the court granted the 15 HOA’s motion and denied Ironshore’s. (Dkt. No. 1-10, NOR Ex. A at 2380.) The 16 court did not indicate whether it intended to completely sever the coverage action 17 from the defect actions, or whether it simply ordered separate trials in the still- 18 consolidated case. 19 The HOA also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the 20 complaint for declaratory relief in the coverage action failed to state a claim against it. 21 (See Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR Ex. A at 2119.) The court granted this motion as to the entire 22 complaint. (Dkt No. 1-10, NOR Ex. A at 2380.) In Everest’s view, the court’s 23 dismissal of the HOA, the last remaining California defendant, rendered the coverage 24 action removable to federal court. According to Everest, PNR and Avoca, as 25 suspended California corporations, are nominal defendants whose citizenship is 26 disregarded for purposes of the diversity jurisdiction analysis. On this basis, Everest 27 filed a Notice of Removal as to the coverage action only. 28 Upon receipt of the Notice of Removal of the coverage action, the state court 3 1 judge dismissed all three actions, including the defect actions, without prejudice. 2 (Dkt. No. 9-8, Declaration of Michael A. Miller in support of Defendant Everest 3 Indemnity Insurance Company’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (“Miller 4 Decl.”) ¶ 38.) At that point, the HOA filed an ex parte application to set aside the 5 dismissal of the entire action so that the construction defect actions could proceed in 6 state court while the coverage action presumably pended in federal court. (Miller 7 Decl. ¶ 39, Ex. 21.) As the HOA explained in that application, the court “unilaterally 8 issued the Dismissal Order, thereby dismissing the entire Consolidated Action without 9 prejudice based on Everest’s Notice of Removal. In doing so, it appears as though the 10 Court may have mistakenly lumped the Underlying Construction Defect Actions 11 together with the Coverage Action for purposes of the dismissal.” (Id. at 5.) The 12 HOA therefore sought an order “setting aside its order dismissing the entire 13 Consolidated Action in favor of an order dismissing without prejudice only the 14 Coverage Action, thereby maintaining jurisdiction over the two Underlying 15 Construction Defect Actions.” (Id.) The court declined to grant this request. Instead, 16 the court ordered the parties to stipulate to the desired relief and submit a proposed 17 order. (Miller Decl. ¶ 46, Ex. 22.) Ironshore’s counsel declined to stipulate, and it 18 appears the construction defect actions have not since been reinstated in state court. 19 (Miller Decl. ¶ 48, Ex. 24.) 20 II. 21 LEGAL STANDARD Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 22 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See 23 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in 24 state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had 25 original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal district courts have 26 original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the 27 sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and is between parties with 28 diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A removed action must be remanded to 4 1 state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which 3 the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by 4 the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district 5 and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” But such a case is 6 not removable “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as 7 defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 8 1441(b)(2). 9 A party may file a notice of removal “within thirty days after receipt by the 10 defendant . . . of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from 11 which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 12 removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). However, in no event may a case be removed 13 more than one year after the commencement of an action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). 14 “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, 15 and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize, 16 Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999), superseded by statute 17 on other grounds as stated in Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 18 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Martinez v. Los Angeles World Airports, No. CV 14-9128-PA- 19 PLAx, 2014 WL 6851440, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2014). “Federal jurisdiction must 20 be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus 21 v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The appropriateness of removal is 22 adjudicated based on the complaint at the time the removal petition is filed.” Rita v. 23 Cypress Sec., LLC, 184 F. Supp. 3d 768, 771 (N.D. Cal. 2016). 24 III. 25 DISCUSSION Ironshore argues this case should be remanded for the following reasons: (1) the 26 state court consolidated this case with two related cases in which California citizens 27 are defendants, and the presence of these defendants bars removal under 28 U.S.C. § 28 1441(b)(2); (2) the state court’s dismissal of the HOA did not render this case 5 1 removable because the dismissal was not a voluntary act by Ironshore; and (3) 2 Defendants PNR and Avoca are not fraudulently joined or nominal parties, such that 3 their citizenship must be considered when determining whether the presence of forum 4 defendants bars removal. Ironshore also seeks an award of costs and expenses as a 5 result of the removal. 6 The Court finds Everest has not met its burden to demonstrate the Court has 7 removal jurisdiction in light of the underlying consolidation, and accordingly, does 8 not reach the remaining arguments in support of remand. The Court also denies 9 Ironshore’s request for costs and expenses. 10 A. Whether the State Court Consolidated the Coverage and Defect 11 Cases for All Purposes Such that the Presence of Forum Defendants 12 Bars Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) 13 Ironshore first argues removal was improper because the state court 14 consolidated the coverage action with the underlying construction defect actions, in 15 which several defendants are citizens of the forum state. (Mot. at 10.) According to 16 Ironshore, the presence of these California defendants thus bars removal under 28 17 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The state court consolidation order states: “The Court finds 18 BC558992, BC610856 and BC614431related within the meaning of CA Rule of Court 19 3.300. Cases are ordered transferred forthwith to Department 62, Judge Michael 20 Stern. The Court further orders the cases consolidated this date. Case BC 558992 is 21 designated to be the lead case. No further pleadings shall be filed in cases BC 610856 22 and BC 614431.” (Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR Ex. A at 2062.) Ironshore argues the state 23 court consolidated these cases for all purposes under California Civil Code section 24 1048(a), and not just for purposes of trial.2 25 2 26 27 28 California Civil Code section 1048(a) provides: “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” 6 1 Everest, on the other hand, cites Sanchez v. Superior Court, 203 Cal. App. 3d 2 1391, 1396 (1988), to argue the cases could not have been consolidated for all 3 purposes because the underlying cases do not involve “the same defendants or the 4 same parties seeking the same relief in reciprocal actions against each other.” (Opp’n 5 at 3-4.) But Sanchez does not support this proposition. The California court in 6 Sanchez rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that two cases had been consolidated when 7 “there were two different sets of plaintiffs who pleaded their cases separately [and] 8 would presumably expect separate judgments,” and when there was “no indication in 9 the record that the two complaints in these actions became merged. On the contrary, 10 the actions retained their separate numbers.” Sanchez, 203 Cal. App. 3d at 1396. 11 Though the court considered the different sets of plaintiffs between the two cases at 12 issue in determining whether the cases had been consolidated, nowhere did the court 13 state that consolidation requires the same plaintiffs or same parties. Nor does the 14 consolidation statute require identical parties. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1048 (discussing 15 only “a common question of law or fact” to support consolidation). 16 Everest also cites Sanchez for the proposition that consolidation for all purposes 17 requires consent or stipulation by the parties. (Opp’n at 4.) The court in Sanchez did 18 say as much, but in dicta, and the authority the court relied on actually stated the 19 opposite: “A consolidation for purposes of trial does not merge the issues in separate 20 cases when they are separate and thus change the requirement for several findings, 21 conclusions and judgment in each case in the absence of a stipulation therefor.” 22 Johnson v. Marr, 8 Cal. App. 2d 312, 314 (1935) (emphasis added). Everest has cited 23 no other authority for this requirement, and once again, the statute itself makes no 24 mention of it. 25 Everest proceeds to argue the consolidation order in the state proceedings “does 26 not provide any clear indication that all three cases were effectively being merged into 27 a single action.” (Opp’n at 5.) Everest continues, “[t]he order merely states that Case 28 BC558992 shall be designated as the lead case and it does not state that it shall be the 7 1 sole case number which is what should have happened if the consolidation was for all 2 purposes.” (Id.) That is simply not the case. As quoted above, the consolidation 3 order states: “The Court further orders the cases consolidated this date. Case BC 4 558992 is designated to be the lead case. No further pleadings shall be filed in cases 5 BC 610856 and BC 614431.” (Keaster Decl. Ex. 1.) 6 In fact, this order mirrors the language of the underlying state court order in 7 Bridewell-Sledge v. Blue Cross of California, 798 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2015), a 8 case which Everest unavailingly attempts to distinguish. In Bridewell-Sledge, the 9 Ninth Circuit ordered that two cases the district court had considered separately for 10 purposes of a motion to remand, but had originally been consolidated by the state 11 court, both be remanded under the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. 12 798 F.3d at 933. To reach that conclusion, the Ninth Circuit considered the state court 13 order in determining that the district court should have treated the two cases as 14 consolidated in accordance with the state court’s consolidation order when conducting 15 the jurisdiction analysis. See id. at 926. Notably, the state court consolidation order 16 contained much of the same language as the one at issue here. Specifically, “the state 17 court granted the motion for consolidation and ordered that the Crowder action and 18 the Bridewell-Sledge action be ‘consolidated this date for all purposes.’ The state 19 court further ordered that Crowder would be designated the lead case, and that all 20 future filings should be made in only that case.” Id. Though the consolidation order 21 here may not have explicitly stated the consolidation was for all purposes, as the court 22 did in Bridewell-Sledge, contrary to Everest’s position, there is certainly “clear 23 indication” that all three cases were being merged into a single action. (See Opp’n at 24 5.) In particular, the state court in this case designated a lead case and instructed that 25 no further pleadings be filed in under the other cases numbers. (Dkt. No. 1-9, NOR 26 Ex. A at 2062.) Considering there is no other language indicating the state court 27 intended to limit the scope of the consolidation, say for purposes of trial, it appears the 28 state court ordered consolidation for all purposes. Tellingly, Everest never objected to 8 1 the consolidation order or asked for the state court to clarify its scope. 2 But perhaps confusing the issue is the state court’s order to bifurcate. In 3 January 2017, the HOA and Ironshore both filed motions to bifurcate the coverage 4 action from the defect actions. (Dkt. No. 1-9, Ex. A at 2138-50, 2090-2107.) 5 Ironshore argued in its motion the coverage matter should proceed to trial prior to the 6 defect cases, while the HOA argued the opposite. (See id.) The court subsequently 7 granted the HOA’s motion and denied Ironshore’s. (Dkt. No. 1-10, Ex. A at 2380.) 8 The court did not clarify, however, whether it intended to completely sever the 9 coverage case from the defect cases or whether they were bifurcated for the purposes 10 of trial only, the latter being permitted under California Civil Code section 1048 even 11 if the cases had originally been consolidated for all purposes.3 12 However, consistent with the state court order being one consolidating the cases 13 for all purposes, the court dismissed all three related actions, not the coverage action 14 alone, on March 15, 2017, after Everest filed the Notice of Removal. (Dkt. No. 9-8, 15 Miller Decl. ¶ 38.) The HOA filed an ex parte application to set aside this dismissal, 16 pointing out the court’s perceived error that all of the actions in the consolidated case 17 had been removed. (Miller Decl. ¶ 39, Ex. 21.) But the court declined to correct this 18 error, if it in fact was an error, and grant the relief requested. (Miller Decl. ¶ 46, Ex. 19 22.) It appears the construction defect actions have not since been reinstated in state 20 court. (Miller Decl. ¶ 48, Ex. 24.) These fact strongly suggest the state court at least 21 believed it had consolidated the coverage and defect cases for all purposes. In such a 22 case, the forum defendants named in the defect cases would bar removal of the overall 23 consolidated action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 24 25 26 27 28 3 California Civil Code section 1048(b) provides: “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” 9 1 But in any event, this case must be remanded. Because the record is not 2 definitive as to whether the instant coverage action was consolidated with the defect 3 actions, the possibility exists that several defendants are citizens of the forum state 4 such that this case was not removable from state court. As is well-settled in the Ninth 5 Circuit, “[w]here doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be 6 remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 7 1090 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Alderman v. Pitney Bowes Mgmt. Servs., 191 F. Supp. 8 2d 1113, 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (“The removal statute is strictly construed against 9 removal jurisdiction and any doubt must be resolved in favor of remand.”). Thus, 10 resolving as it must all doubts in favor of remand, the Court finds the state court 11 ordered the three underlying cases consolidated, proceeded as though they were 12 consolidated for all purposes when it dismissed all three cases once the Notice of 13 Removal was filed, and refused to grant relief from the dismissal order when alerted 14 to its alleged error.4 Moreover, Everest served the Notice of Removal on the parties in 15 the related construction defect cases in addition to those in this coverage case. (See 16 Dkt. No. 7.) The Court therefore treats the three state courts actions as consolidated 17 and finds the forum defendants in the defect cases render the instant case not 18 removable.5 The Court GRANTS Ironshore’s Motion to Remand. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 Everest argues the state court “mistakenly interpreted the Everest Notice of Removal of Action as seeking to remove all three cases,” which thus “should not have any bearing on whether the three cases were consolidated for all purposes . . . .” (Opp’n at 8.) That may well be the case, but this Court is not permitted to fill in the blanks or guess about what a state court intended to do. Nor is it an appellate court able to correct the actions of a state court. It is therefore constrained to viewing the state’s courts actions, if they raise doubt about the propriety of removal, in favor of remand. Doing so in this instance suggests the state court dismissed all three actions because they were consolidated, an inference that supports remand here. 5 26 27 28 The parties raise other issues relating to consolidation, including whether consolidation of the coverage and defect cases was an abuse of discretion. (See Opp’n at 5-6.) But the Court’s resolution of these issues would necessarily have to be in favor of remand and would not further clarify the removability of this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to address them. 10 1 B. 2 Ironshore seeks an award of costs and expenses incurred from the improper Fees and Expenses 3 removal, arguing Everest failed to “advise the court of the crucial fact that this action 4 was consolidated with two other actions,” made certain allegations about PNR and 5 Avoca they failed to support with factual evidence, and filed the Notice of Removal at 6 the last permissible moment late in the litigation. (Mot. at 20-21.) District courts 7 have the discretion to award attorneys’ fees “only where the removing party lacked an 8 objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 9 546 U.S. 132 (2005). 10 Considering the confusing nature of the state court record, the Court finds 11 Everest had an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal here. Moreover, 12 Everest did inform the Court that the state court had ordered the defect and coverage 13 cases consolidated, and there is nothing unreasonable about filing a notice of removal 14 within the statutory timeframe, even if towards the end of that timeframe. 15 Accordingly, no award of costs and expenses is justified, and the Court DENIES 16 Ironshore’s request. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Ironshore’s Motion to Remand 19 and DENIES its request for an award of costs and expenses. The clerk shall remand 20 this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court and close the case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 Dated: April 21, 2017 _______________________________________ HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 11
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
