Sepideh T. Saghizadeh v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al

Filing 31

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge George H. Wu. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number BC648097. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1530-GW(AJWx)

Title

Sepideh T. Saghizadeh v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

February 7, 2018

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

This lawsuit was removed to federal court on February 24, 2017, on the basis of alleged
complete diversity. See Docket No. 1. On March 22, 2017, this Court issued an OSC regarding the
deficiency of the averments as to diversity and ordered the parties to address the issue. See Docket No.
10. On March 24, 2017, the parties stipulated to a stay of the case because the underlying dispute had
been submitted to binding arbitration, and the stay was granted. See Docket Nos. 11-12. On March 29,
2017, Defendants filed a response to the Court’s OSC. See Docket No. 13. In an order filed in this
action on May 4, 2017, the Court explained why defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and CVS RX Services,
Inc. (“Defendants”) had thus far failed to successfully establish the existence of this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction at the time of removal in this case, as required by such Ninth Circuit cases as Strotek
Corp. v. Air Transport Association of America, 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002), and Miller v.
Grgurich, 763 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1985). See Docket No. 14. The Court gave Defendants two
options in response to that Order, one of which allowed them the opportunity to cite “controlling
authority to support the proposition that a post-removal dismissal of a non-diverse defendant in a
removal case establishes a basis for a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction,” notwithstanding cases
such as Strotek and Miller.
Defendants responded by filing two briefs in which they cited three cases: 1) Caterpillar Inc. v.
Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), 2) Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567 (2004), and 3)
Kakarala v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 615 Fed. Appx. 424, 425 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2015). See Docket Nos.
15, 29. Despite being given the opportunity to do so, plaintiff Sepideh T. Saghizadeh did not file a brief
on the topic.
In the face of Ninth Circuit decisions such as Strotek and Miller, the Court does not find
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 1 of 2

REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1530-GW(AJWx)

Date

Title

February 7, 2018

Sepideh T. Saghizadeh v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al.

Defendants’ responsive briefs sufficient to the task, for the following reasons. First, unlike in
Caterpillar, no judgment has been entered in this action. Therefore, the rule – that “a district court’s
error in failing to remand a case improperly removed – is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal
jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered,” 519 U.S. at 64 (emphasis added),
has no application here.
Second, Grupo Dataflux is not a removal case. See 541 U.S. at 568. Therefore, its rule that a
lack of complete diversity at the time of filing a non-removal case may be cured by dismissal of
nondiverse parties who are not indispensable likewise has no application here. In addition, its
commentary on Caterpillar, see id. at 572-74, does not change the fact that, in Caterpillar, the action
had actually proceeded to judgment.
Third, Kakarala is not a published opinion, and therefore is not binding precedent in this Circuit.
See Ninth Cir. R. 36-3(a). Beyond that decision’s status as non-precedential, it reflects a common trait
amongst non-binding memoranda dispositions (and one which, even beyond the terms of Ninth Circuit
Rule 36-3, counsels caution in relying on such rulings) – a less-than-complete discussion of key facts
involved in the case (useful for, among other things, determining whether precedential decisions may be
distinguished). For instance, while it observes “[t]hat a non-diverse defendant...was present at an earlier
point in the litigation is irrelevant,” 615 Fed. Appx. at 425, there is no mention of just when that nondiverse defendant “was present...in the litigation,” i.e. whether it was still “present” at the time of
removal. If that non-diverse defendant was not present at the time of removal, the case has no similarity
to this action in addition to not serving as binding precedent.
For the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with the earlier orders issued in this case bearing
on this jurisdictional inquiry, see Docket Nos. 10, 14, 16, the Court remands this action forthwith to the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Deputy Clerk _______________________

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 2 of 2