Raul Camacho et al v. JLG Industries, Inc. et al
Filing
28
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge David O. Carter: denying 14 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court. (twdb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-1188 DOC (KESx)
Date: September 6, 2017
Title: RAUL CAMACHO, ET AL. V. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Deborah Goltz
Courtroom Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:
None Present
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND [14]
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Raul Camacho (“Camacho”) and Lucia R.
Materrano’s (“Materrano”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand Case to the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange (“Motion”) (Dkt. 14). Materrano is
representing Camacho as his guardian ad litem and is also a plaintiff in this action,
seeking damages for loss of consortium. The Court finds this matter appropriate for
resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having reviewed the
moving papers and considered the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’
Motion.
I. Facts and Procedural History
The Court adopts the facts as set out in Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1)
and JLG Industries, Inc.’s (“JLG”) Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1).
On or about December 8, 2015, Plaintiff Camacho was installing glass in a hotel
while standing on a scissor lift. Compl. ¶ 9. While bending over to lift the glass, he
slipped and fell to the concrete below. Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs allege that Camacho suffered
traumatic brain injury, among other severe injuries, as a direct result of the fall. Id. ¶ 12.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-1188 DOC (KESx)
Date: September 6, 2017
Page 2
On February 9, 2017, Plaintiffs brought this action in the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange. Notice of Removal ¶ 1. They allege that a defective
condition existed in equipment manufactured by JLG and rented out by Sunbelt Rentals,
Inc. (“Sunbelt”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and seek damages for product liability,
negligence, and loss of consortium. Id. ¶ 3.
On July 5, 2017, Plaintiffs’ Workmen’s Compensation Carrier, National Security
Insurance Company (“NSIC”) filed a motion to intervene as a subrogee pursuant to
California Labor Code §§ 3852–3. Mot. at 1. The Superior Court scheduled a hearing on
NSIC’s motion for July 17, 2017. On July 12, 2017, a week after NSIC filed its motion to
intervene, Defendant JLG removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiffs
do not contest that diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter.
On August 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion, arguing that removal while
the motion to intervene was pending in state court is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Id. at
2. On August 21, 2017, Defendant Sunbelt filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion
(“Sunbelt Opp’n”) (Dkt. 15). Also on August 21, 2017, Defendant JLG joined in
Sunbelt’s Opposition (Dkt. 16) and filed its own Opposition (“JLG Opp’n”) (Dkt. 17).
II. Legal Standard
Removal of a case from state to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441,
which provides in pertinent part that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by an act
of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . . to the district court of the
United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.” The removing defendant must file a notice of removal in the appropriate
United States District Court, together with all process, pleadings, and orders served upon
the defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Notice of removal must be filed within thirty days of
receiving a copy of the original complaint, or “within 30 days after the service of
summons upon the defendant, if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is
not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b). Remand may be ordered for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or any defect in
the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
To protect the jurisdiction of state courts, removal jurisdiction should be strictly
construed in favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698
(9th Cir. 2005) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheet, 313 U.S. 100, 108–09
(1941)). If there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance, remand must
be ordered. See Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-1188 DOC (KESx)
III.
Date: September 6, 2017
Page 3
Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), Congress expressly prohibits removal of “[a] civil
action in any State court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such State . .
. .” Claims under California Labor Code § 3852 arise under California’s workers’
compensation laws and therefore may not be removed from state court. Zurich Am. Ins.
Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 242 F. Supp. 2d 736, 739 (E.D. Cal. 2003). Plaintiffs argue
that removing their claim while a motion to intervene under California Labor Code §
3852 was pending in state court violated 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). Mot. at 2. In response,
Defendants argue that § 1445(c) was not implicated, because only NSIC’s subrogation
claim—not Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants—arose under California’s workers’
compensation laws, and NSIC had not yet officially intervened at the time of removal.
Sunbelt Opp’n at 1–2; JLG Opp’n at 3–4.
California Labor Code § 3852 confers a right of subrogation on employers and
others, such as insurance carriers, who pay workers’ compensation benefits. “The statute
allows those who become obligated by state law to pay workers’ compensation benefits
to bring an action against a tortious third party for recovery of those benefits.” Zurich,
242 F. Supp. 2d at 737 n.2. “A party with subrogation rights under California Labor Code
section 3850 et seq. may choose to (1) bring an action directly against a third party, (2)
intervene in plaintiff's action, or, (3) claim a lien on recovery.” Alonso v. Blount, Inc., No.
CV1603986BROVBKX, 2016 WL 4251569, at *4 n.8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) (citing
W. Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1196, 1206 (2011)). Here,
NSIC sought to intervene in Plaintiffs’ action as a subrogee pursuant to California Labor
Code § 3852.
An intervening employer or insurance company has the right to recover in the
same suit as the plaintiff under California Labor Code § 3852. Id. Because of that right
and because 28 U.S.C. 1445(c) prohibits removal of the intervener’s claim, once a party
lawfully intervenes in state court, the plaintiff’s otherwise removable claim can no longer
be removed. Id. However, Plaintiffs’ assertion that removal to this Court was
procedurally improper because a motion to intervene was pending in state court is
incorrect. In California, “an intervener becomes an actual party to the suit by virtue of the
order authorizing him to intervene.” W. Heritage Ins. Co., 199 Cal. App. 4th at 1206.
Because JLG removed this case before NSIC became a party, 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) does
not apply.
The Court notes that this outcome is in tension with the policy goals of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1445(c), which include (1) preserving the plaintiff’s forum choice in workers’
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 17-1188 DOC (KESx)
Date: September 6, 2017
Page 4
compensation cases, (2) protecting the state’s interest in administering their own workers’
affairs, and (3) reducing federal courts’ workload. Zurich, 242 F. Supp. 2d at 739.
It is not clear whether NSIC would prefer to proceed in state court. Although
NSIC submitted a declaration supporting Plaintiffs’ Motion, their support was based on
the mistaken assertion that they could not file a subrogation claim in this Court. See
Declaration of William Getty (Dkt. 14) ¶ 3. However, § 1445(c) only proscribes removal
of subrogation claims—it does not prevent NSIC from filing a subrogation claim directly
in this Court. Vasquez v. N. Cty. Transit Dist., 292 F.3d 1049, 1061–62 (9th Cir. 2002),
as amended (Aug. 7, 2002) (explaining that the § 1445(c) statutory prohibition against
removal of actions arising under state workers’ compensation laws is procedural rather
than jurisdictional, and thus does not preclude a claim under California Labor Code §
3852 from being filed directly in federal court (citing Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367
U.S. 348, 352 (1961))).
Allowing Defendants to game the system by removing to federal court when a
complaint in intervention is pending harms California’s interest in administering its own
workers’ affairs and increases the federal courts’ workload. JLG filed its Notice of
Removal merely five days before the state court would have decided whether to allow
intervention. Mot. at 2. Denying remand allows Defendants to evade the statutory
prohibition against removal of actions arising under state workers’ compensation law by
strategically removing to federal court while a motion to intervene is pending.
Nevertheless, current precedent leaves no doubt that Defendants’ removal of this action
was proper. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.
IV.
Disposition
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?