Massoud Pouratian et al v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company, et al

Filing 18

Order REMANDING Case to State Court by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. See memorandum for specifics. (bp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
JS 6
Case No.
Title

Date

CV 15-1507 DSF (VBKx)

4/6/15

Massoud Pouratian, et al. v. Travelers Commercial Ins., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

Debra Plato
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to State Court

This case was removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The
complaint, on its face, did not present diversity jurisdiction until the state court granted
summary judgment in favor of Defendant Team 5 Services, Inc., dba Puroclean
(“Puroclean”). The removing Defendant, Travelers Property Casualty Insurance
Company, does not appear to contest that this was an involuntary dismissal of Puroclean
and cannot provide the basis for diversity jurisdiction removal. See also Self v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 588 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1978). Travelers instead argues that Puroclean was
always fraudulently joined. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Travelers has not
established that Puroclean was fraudulently joined. The response to the OSC merely
recites why the state court granted Puroclean’s motion for summary judgment and fails to
establish that the failure of the claims against Puroclean was obvious under settled
California law. Second, even if Puroclean had been fraudulently joined, such fraudulent
joinder, virtually by definition, would have been apparent on the face of the complaint.
Removal occurred well beyond 30 days after service of the complaint on Travelers.
While this is a procedural flaw in the removal, it is clear from Plaintiffs’ opposition to
Travelers’s response to the OSC that Plaintiffs do not acquiesce in the removal and would
like the case to be remanded. Further, Travelers’s current position on fraudulent joinder
is directly counter to its position in the notice of removal – the notice of removal
explicitly states that Travelers had no notice that the case was removable until
Puroclean’s motion for summary judgment was granted. (Notice of Removal ¶ 4.)

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
JS 6
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (12/02)

MEMORANDUM

Page 2 of 2