Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., No. 23-55403 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves three consolidated appeals by Dexcom, Inc., a California-based company, against the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to remand three product liability actions back to California state court. The remand was based on the forum defendant rule, which prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction if any of the defendants is a citizen of the state where the action is brought.
Dexcom had removed the cases to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction after the complaints were submitted electronically but before they were officially filed by the clerk of court. Dexcom argued that the forum defendant rule did not bar removal because it had not yet been “joined and served” as a defendant.
The district court held that an electronically submitted complaint is not “filed” in California state court until it is processed and endorsed or otherwise acknowledged as officially filed by the clerk of the court. Therefore, Dexcom’s removals were ineffectual attempts to remove cases that did not yet exist as civil actions pending in state court. As a result, the district court had the power to grant the plaintiffs’ eventual motions to remand based on a perceived violation of the forum defendant rule, even though the motions were brought 31 days after Dexcom’s initial (ineffectual) notices of removal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, as the district court had the power under § 1447(c) to order remand based on the forum defendant rule.
Court Description: Diversity Jurisdiction/Removal. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction three consolidated appeals challenging the district court’s decision to remand each of the underlying product liability actions back to California state court under the forum defendant rule contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), which prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Violation of the forum defendant rule is a non- jurisdictional defect, which is waived if a plaintiff does not seek remand on that basis within 30 days of removal. Dexcom, the lone defendant and a citizen of California, removed these cases to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction after the complaints were submitted electronically but before they were filed by the clerk of court. Dexcom alleged that the forum defendant rule did not bar removal because Dexcom had not yet been “joined and served” as a defendant as required by § 1441(b)(2).
The panel held that for purposes of removability, an electronically submitted complaint is not “filed” in California state court until it is processed and endorsed or otherwise acknowledged as officially filed by the clerk of the court. Dexcom’s removals were ineffectual attempts to remove cases that did not yet exist as civil actions pending in state court, and thus Dexcom’s initial notices of removal were legal nullities that did not start the 30-day remand clock under § 1447(c). Accordingly, the district court had the power to grant the plaintiffs’ eventual motions to remand based on a perceived violation of the forum defendant rule, even though the motions were brought 31 days after Dexcom’s initial (ineffectual) notices of removal. Because the district court had the power under § 1447(c) to order remand based on the forum defendant rule, the panel lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to review the remand orders.
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.