Raymund Navarro et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

Filing 13

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Percy Anderson: Proceedings: Court Order: The Court concludes that Defendant's second Notice of Removal is procedurally defective. Accordingly, this action is remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court , Case No. BC603415. The Court stays this order until March 3, 2016. If Plaintiffs wish to remain in federal court and thereby waive the procedural defect discussed above, Plaintiffs shall notify the Court in writing on or before March 3, 2016. (mg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-1166 PA (GJSx)

Title

Raymund Navarro, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

February 25, 2016

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Medtronic, Inc. (“Defendant”) on
February 19, 2016. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over the action
brought against it by plaintiffs Raymund Navarro (“Navarro”) and Steven Ray (“Ray”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) based on the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant previously
filed a Notice of Removal on January 13, 2016. In a January 14, 2016 Order, this Court remanded the
action because Defendant had failed to demonstrate complete diversity and the amount in controversy
necessary to establish the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize,
Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992).
A second removal is permissible when made on new grounds arising from subsequent pleadings
or events. See Peabody v. Maud Van Cortland Hill Schroll Trust, 892 F.2d 772, 776 (9th Cir. 1989);
One Sylvan Rd. N. Assocs. v. Lark Int’l, Ltd., 889 F. Supp. 60, 62–63 (D. Conn. 1995) (“A defendant
who fails in an attempt to remove on the initial pleadings can file a second removal petition when
subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal.”) (emphasis added).
However, a party cannot remove a case twice based on the same grounds. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist.
Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (“a second removal petition based on the
same grounds does not ‘reinvest’ the court’s jurisdiction”). Indeed, a second attempt at removal is
justified only when there has been a “substantial change in the nature of the instant case since it was last
in this court.” One Sylvan, 889 F. Supp. at 64.
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 16-1166 PA (GJSx)

Date

Title

February 25, 2016

Raymund Navarro, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc.

Here, there has been no change in the nature of the case, and there have not been any subsequent
pleadings or papers regarding Plaintiffs’ citizenship which might provide a basis for a second removal.
The current Notice of Removal cites a new ground for Defendant’s assertion that the amount in
controversy requirement is satisfied—namely, Plaintiffs’ Bill of Particulars. However, the current
Notice of Removal merely contains additional facts about Plaintiffs’ citizenship that Defendant had
access to but failed to allege when it filed its first Notice of Removal. The current Notice of Removal
simply cites the Complaint and a Declaration by Defendant’s employee stating that Plaintiffs have
worked in California for many years and that neither has indicated any intent not to remain in California.
Defendant’s new allegations are insufficient to support a proper successive removal. They do not
constitute a new and different ground for removal and are not based on a substantial change in the nature
of the case since it was last in this Court. As such, Defendant has impermissibly attempted to remove
this action twice on the same grounds. Such successive removals are improper and unjustified.
The Court therefore concludes that Defendant’s second Notice of Removal is procedurally
defective. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).1/ Accordingly, this action is remanded to Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Case No. BC603415. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court stays this order until March
3, 2016. If Plaintiffs wish to remain in federal court and thereby waive the procedural defect discussed
above, Plaintiffs shall notify the Court in writing on or before March 3, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/

Defendant’s request for “leave to amend the Notice and to submit such other and additional
evidence as is necessary to satisfy the court of its jurisdiction over the matter” is denied. At this time,
there is no remedy for the procedural defect.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2