Raul Camacho et al v. JLG Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 43

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge David O. Carter Granting MOTION to File First Amended Complaint and Remand Action to State Court 34 . For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion. The Proposed Complaint is the operative Complaint as of this date and this action is REMANDED to the California Superior Court, County of Orange. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017

Title: RAUL CAMACHO, ET AL. V. JLG INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Deborah Lewman
Courtroom Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:
None Present

Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND AND REMAND [34]
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Raul Camacho (“Camacho”) and Lucia R.
Maturrano’s (“Maturrano”)1 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint and to Remand Case to State Court (“Motion”) (Dkt. 34). The Court finds this
matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
Having reviewed the moving papers and considered the parties’ arguments, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.
I.

Background
A.

Facts

The following facts are drawn from Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint
(“Proposed Compl.”) (Dkt. 34) and the Declaration of Emily A. Ruby (“Ruby Decl.”)
(Dkt. 34) Ex. 1.

1

Plaintiff Lucia Maturrano’s surname was misspelled in the Complaint. Mot. at 2.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 2

This case arises from injuries that Plaintiff Raul Camacho suffered as a result of an
accident that occurred on December 8, 2015. On that day, Camacho was using a scissor
lift to install glass in a hotel building when he slipped between the top rail and the floor
of the lift’s standing platform and fell twelve feet to the ground below, sustaining serious
injuries. Proposed Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18. The scissor lift was manufactured by JLG
Industries, Inc. (“JLG”), and rented from Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“Sunbelt”) (collectively,
“Defendants”). Id. ¶¶ 12–13. Plaintiffs allege that the scissor lift was defectively designed
because it left an open space between the floor and the top rail, and because it was not
equipped with an approved personal fall protection system or with a full body harness
and lanyard. Id. ¶¶ 17, 18. All of these allegations were also set out in Plaintiffs’ original
Complaint. See Compl. (Dkt. 1) ¶¶ 9–13.
After filing their original Complaint in the Superior Court, however, Plaintiffs
retained new counsel. Ruby Decl. ¶ 2. When Plaintiffs’ current attorneys of record took
over, they reviewed all available materials relevant to the case, which were extensive, and
conducted legal and factual research in order to determine whether there were any
additional causes of action or potentially liable parties. Id. ¶ 3. During their review, the
attorneys discovered that the Division of Occupational Health and Safety (“Cal/OSHA”)
had identified at least five violations of state safety regulations related to the scissor lift,
which Cal/OSHA determined had caused or contributed to Camacho’s injury. Id. ¶ 9. The
attorneys also found substantial evidence indicating that R.D. Olson Construction, Inc.
(“R.D. Olson”) was the general contractor in charge of the worksite where the incident
occurred. Id. ¶¶ 4–8.
As a result, in the Proposed Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs seek to file,
Plaintiffs name R.D. Olson as a third Defendant. Proposed Compl. ¶¶ 7, 10. They allege
that the company R.D. Olson was the general contractor of the worksite, and that as such,
R.D. Olson was responsible for and exercised control over the safety of the worksite and
the manner in which those on the worksite, including Plaintiff, performed work. Id. ¶ 14.
Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that R.D. Olson provided the allegedly defective scissor lift to
those persons working on the premises. Id. ¶ 51. Finally, Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended
Complaint sets out new allegations claiming that all Defendants—including JLG,
Sunbelt, and R.D. Olson—violated numerous safety regulations. Id. ¶ 64.
B.

Procedural History

On February 9, 2017, Plaintiffs brought this action in the Superior Court of
California, County of Orange. Id. ¶ 2. On July 12, 2017, Defendants removed to this
Court (Dkt. 1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 3

On September 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion. Plaintiffs seek leave to
file an amended complaint adding R.D. Olson as a defendant, which would destroy
diversity, and on that basis request that the Court remand the case to state court. Mot. at
1; Ruby Decl. ¶¶ 14–15. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint also asserts a new
claim of negligence per se against the existing Defendants based on their alleged
violations of California state safety regulations. Prop. Compl. ¶¶ 63–67. On October 2,
2017, Sunbelt filed its Opposition (“Sunbelt Opp’n”) (Dkt. 36). JLG filed its Opposition
on the same day (“JLG Opp’n”) (Dkt. 38). On October 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their
Reply (Dkt. 40).
II.

Legal Standard
A.

Leave to Amend Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15

Generally, leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The decision whether to permit amendment lies within
the sound discretion of the trial court, which “must be guided by the underlying purpose
of Rule 15 to facilitate decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or
technicalities.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981). Thus, Rule 15’s
policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with “extreme liberality.”
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 1990); Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that dismissal with leave to amend
should be granted even if no request to amend was made).
The Supreme Court has identified four factors relevant to whether a motion for
leave to amend should be denied: undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of
amendment, and undue prejudice to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182, (1962). The Ninth Circuit holds that these factors are not of equal weight;
specifically, “delay alone no matter how lengthy is an insufficient ground for denial of
leave to amend.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 1981); accord
Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir. 1999). The most important factor is whether
amendment would prejudice the opposing party. Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187,
1190 (9th Cir. 1973). “Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the
remaining Foman factors, there exists a presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of
granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052
(9th Cir. 2003). However, “[f]utility of amendment can, by itself, justify denial of a
motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). A
proposed amended pleading is futile if it would not meet the 12(b)(6) standard for
ascertaining the legal sufficiency of a pleading. See Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845
F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) abrogated by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); see

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 4

Gibson Brands, Inc. v. John Hornby Skewes & Co., Ltd., No. CV 14-00609 DDP(SS),
2015 WL 4651250, at *4 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015) (“[A]s the Miller court noted, the
test for futility is the same as the test applied on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. After Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, that pleading standard is no longer viable. Thus, the proper standard is Iqbal’s
plausibility standard.” (citations omitted)).
B.

Amendment to Add a Non-Diverse Defendant

When a plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants after removal, and that joinder
would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, a court may deny joinder, or allow it and
remand the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). Under Section 1447, the decision whether to allow
joinder is up to “the discretion of the court.” See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d
686, 691 (9th Cir. 1998). In the Ninth Circuit, district courts, in the exercise of their
broad discretion, may consider any of a wide range of factors in deciding whether to
permit amendment to join non-diverse defendants, including whether:
(1) the party to be joined is necessary for just adjudication;
(2) plaintiff would be barred by a statute of limitations from
bringing claims against the new defendant in state court; (3)
there has been unexplained delay in seeking joinder; (4)
plaintiff’s purpose in seeking joinder is dilatory; (5) the
claims against the new defendant appear valid; and (6) denial
of joinder will prejudice plaintiff.
Gunn v. Wild, No. C-01-4320 VRW, 2002 WL 356642, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2002)
(citing IBC Aviation Servs., Inc. v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V., 125 F.
Supp. 2d 1008, 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2000). “A court need not consider all the issues, as any
factor can be decisive, and no one of them is a necessary condition for joinder.” Negrete
v. Meadowbrook Meat Co., ED CV 11-1861 DOC, 2012 WL 254039 at *3 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 25, 2012); Yang v. Swissport USA, Inc., C 09-03823 SI, 2010 WL 2680800 (N.D.
Cal. July 6, 2010).
III.

Discussion
A.

Amendment to Add Negligence Per Se Claim Against JLG and Sunbelt

Sunbelt and JLG argue that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to amend their
Complaint to add a claim of negligence per se against Defendants, because such
amendment would be futile. JLG Opp’n at 12; Sunbelt Opp’n at 3–4. Plaintiffs base their
request to add a claim of negligence per se on allegations that the scissor lift JLG
manufactured and Sunbelt rented out violated the California Code of Regulations.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 5

Proposed Compl. ¶ 64. While Defendants do not dispute that they would be liable if the
scissor lift is found to violate California safety provisions, they argue that Plaintiffs have
not plausibly alleged that the scissor lift did in fact violate the safety code. JLG Opp’n at
13–15; Sunbelt Opp’n 4–7. Plaintiffs respond that their allegations are valid and ask the
Court to grant leave to amend their Complaint. Reply at 9–10.
The Court, in its discretion, may deny leave to amend to add a futile complaint.
Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d at 845. A proposed amendment is futile if it does not meet the
12(b)(6) standard for plausibility. See Gibson Brands, Inc., 2015 WL 4651250, at *4 n.4.
Here, Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of state safety regulations, and also point out
that Cal/OSHA conducted an investigation into the incident and identified at least five
violations of state safety regulations related to the scissor lift. Mot. at 3–4. Defendants
challenge the plausibility of each alleged violation, but Defendants’ arguments do not
show that the alleged violations of state safety code are implausible.
For example, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ scissor lift violated California
Code of Regulations title 8, § 3462(a) by using a chain between the floor and the top rail
of the standing platform that did not provide protection equivalent to a midrail. Proposed
Compl. ¶ 17. Under § 3462(a), the platform deck of elevating work platform equipment
must be equipped with a guardrail that is 42 inches high, and have a midrail between the
guardrail and the floor of the platform. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 3642(a). The regulation
also provides that chains or the equivalent may be substituted for the midrail where they
give “equivalent protection.” Id. Defendants argue that the scissor lift could not have
violated this regulation because the regulation provides that chains may be used instead
of a midrail, and the scissor lift had a chain. JLG Opp’n at 13; Sunbelt Opp’n at 4–5.
However, Plaintiffs allege that the chain did not provide protection that was equivalent to
a midrail as required by the regulation. Proposed Compl. ¶ 28. This allegation is
sufficient to plausibly allege that the scissor lift violated state safety code, particularly
when considered alongside the allegation that Cal/OSHA reported said violation.
Given that at least one of the alleged safety violations is plausible, adding a
negligence per se claim would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
Motion to Amend their Complaint to add this cause of action.
B.

Amendment to Add R.D. Olson as a Defendant

Plaintiffs also seek leave to add R.D. Olson as a defendant, which would destroy
complete diversity among the parties and make remand proper. Lincoln Prop. Co. v.
Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005). Defendants argue that Plaintiff seeks to add R.D. Olson
solely to destroy jurisdiction, and that the amendment should not be permitted. JLG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 6

Opp’n at 4; Sunbelt Opp’n at 1. Plaintiffs respond that they requests joinder in good faith,
and that all six factors set forth in IBC Aviation Services favor allowing joinder and
remand. Reply at 2–9. The Court considers each factor in turn.
1.

Just Adjudication

Plaintiffs argue that denying leave to amend to add R.D. Olson would be unjust
because it would “deprive Plaintiffs of the opportunity to recover all of their damages,
while allowing Defendants to unfairly limit their liability.” Mot. at 10. To support this
contention, Plaintiffs point out that Defendants have asserted affirmative defenses
alleging fault of third parties. Id. Thus, Plaintiffs argue they will be precluded from full
recovery if R.D. Olson is not made a party because Defendant is likely to argue that R.D.
Olson is a responsible third party. Id. at 10–11. Defendants respond that Plaintiffs cannot
show that R.D. Olson is a necessary party by making guesses about Defendants’ trial
strategies. JLG Opp’n at 5–6; Sunbelt Opp’n at 8–9.
The question of whether joinder is needed for just adjudication is informed by
whether a party must be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 19 “requires joinder of persons whose absence would preclude the grant
of complete relief, or whose absence would impede their ability to protect their interests
or would subject any of the parties to the danger of inconsistent obligations.” IBC
Aviation Servs., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1011 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)). Joinder is proper
under Rule 19 where failure to join defendants would result in “separate and redundant
actions.” Id. at 1011.
However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 does not exclusively govern whether
the Court may allow joinder and remand. The legislative history of a 1988 amendment to
the U.S. Code indicates that Congress “intended § 1447(e), not FRCP 19 and 20, to
govern joinder and remand questions in removed cases.” Trotman v. United Parcel Serv.,
No. C-96-1168-VRW, 1996 WL 428333, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 1996). The discretion
to amend under Section 1447(e) “is broader than the more restrictive joinder rules set
forth in FRCP 19 and 20 . . . .” Moreover, Section 1447(e) was intended to “narrow the
diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts” and “undermine the doctrine employed by
some courts that amendments which destroyed diversity were to be viewed with
suspicion.” Id. Therefore, courts in the Ninth Circuit find that just adjudication favors
joinder of diversity-destroying defendants so long as they bear more than a “tangential
relationship” to the cause of action. See Perryman, 2009 WL 5185177, at *3; IBC
Aviation Servs., 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1012; Reynolds v. Diamond Pet Food Processors of
California, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02118-JAM-AC, 2016 WL 1711671, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr.
29, 2016).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 7

Here, Plaintiffs argue that R.D. Olson is liable for Camacho’s injury because it
exercised control over the worksite and failed to prevent the use of the scissor lift that
allegedly caused Camacho’s injury. Mot. at 6–7. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that R.D.
Olson actually provided the allegedly defective scissor lift for use by those on the
worksite. Proposed Compl. ¶ 51. In similar cases, courts have found that a party who
allegedly contributed to the plaintiffs’ harm is more than tangentially related to the cause
of action. See, e.g., Perryman, 2009 WL 5185177, at *3 (finding that just adjudication
favored joinder of an exercise facility manager who allegedly failed to supervise faulty
equipment); Yang, 2010 WL 2680800, at *4 (“Plaintiffs allege that [two individual
defendants’] negligence and reckless disregard of company safety procedures caused, in
part, plaintiffs’ injuries. Thus, the claims against [the individuals] are more than just
tangentially related to those pending against [the company], and accordingly weigh in
favor of joinder.”); Bakshi v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, No. C07-00881 CW, 2007 WL
1232049, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2007) (finding that just adjudication favored joinder
because denying joinder would hinder plaintiff in asserting his rights against individual
employee defendant, who was allegedly involved in the retaliatory conduct).
The present action is similar to cases such as Perryman, where amendment to
name the general manager of an exercise center was allowed because he was “alleged to
be significantly involved in the occurrence giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims.” Perryman,
2009 WL 5185177, at *3. Here, like in Perryman, Plaintiffs allege that R.D. Olson
negligently caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ injuries in this case by providing the
allegedly defective scissor lift. Mot. at 4–7. Therefore, R.D. Olson is more than
tangentially related to the claims underlying this suit, and this factor favors joinder.
2.

Statute of Limitation

The Court next considers whether the statute of limitations on the state claim
would prevent Plaintiffs from bringing their claim in state court. Plaintiffs’ Proposed
Complaint alleges personal injury claims against R.D. Olson. Mot. at 1. The statute of
limitations for a personal injury action in California is two years. See Cal. Code Civ.
Proc. § 338(c)(1). Since Camacho was injured on December 8, 2015, the statute of
limitations will not run until December 8, 2017. See JLG Opp’n at 7; Sunbelt Opp’n at 9.
Hence, it is possible for Plaintiffs to pursue this action in state court, although they
would have to move quickly. However, while a state court action against R.D. Olson
might be possible, requiring Plaintiffs to litigate in two forums would be a waste of
judicial resources and risk inconsistent results. See IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d at
1012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

3.

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 8

Unexplained Delay

The Court next considers whether Plaintiffs unduly delayed amendment to add a
non-diverse party. Seven months have elapsed since Plaintiffs’ counsel took over the
instant action on February 9, 2017. See Ruby Decl. ¶ 3. However, the Motion is timely
and was brought prior to the scheduling conference. Since this action is in its early stages
in federal court, joinder and remand to state court will not cause delay that will prejudice
the Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel explains that she acted in good faith by
diligently reviewing the available materials before moving for joinder. Mot. at 11.
Because Plaintiffs have provided reasonable explanation for their delay in filing this
Motion, this factor favors joinder.
4.

Joinder Solely to Defeat Jurisdiction

The Court next considers whether the Plaintiffs seek addition of the non-diverse
defendant solely to defeat diversity jurisdiction. However, “[s]uspicion of diversity
destroying amendments is not as important now that § 1447(e) gives courts more
flexibility in dealing with the addition of such defendants.” IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d
at 1012. Plaintiffs’ seek to add R.D. Olson as a defendant so that they may avoid the
expense and other burdens of proceeding with two separate trials. Mot. at 10. Because
Plaintiffs’ have provided reasonable objectives showing that their motive is not solely to
defeat jurisdiction, this factor favors joinder.
5.

Validity of the Claims

The Court next considers whether Plaintiffs’ claim against R.D. Olson appears
valid. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claim against R.D. Olson is invalid because it is
barred by the Privette doctrine. JLG Opp’n at 9; Sunbelt Opp’n at 8–9.
The Privette doctrine is a general rule in California that independent contractors’
employees who are injured in the workplace cannot sue the party that hired the contractor
to do the work. Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. 4th 689 (1993), as modified on denial of
reh’g (Sept. 16, 1993). The reason for this rule is that, in general, “when an independent
contractor is hired to perform inherently dangerous work, the contractor receives
authority to determine how the work is to be performed and assumes a corresponding
responsibility to see that the work is performed in a safe manner.” Tverberg v. Fillner
Const., Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1439, 1446 (2012), order vacated (Feb. 27, 2012).
However, “if a hirer does retain control over safety conditions at a worksite and
negligently exercises that control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to an

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 9

employee’s injuries, it is only fair to impose liability on the hirer.” Hooker v. Dep’t of
Transportation, 27 Cal. 4th 198 (2002), as modified (Jan. 31, 2002).
Here, Plaintiffs allege that R.D. Olson was the general contractor in charge of the
worksite where Camacho was injured, was present when Camacho was injured, directed
how work was to be conducted at the worksite, and provided the scissor lift for Camacho
to use. Proposed Compl. ¶¶ 14, 51. On that basis, Plaintiffs claim that R.D. Olson is liable
for Camacho’s injuries. Mot. at 6–8. This claim appears valid under Hooker and
decisions in subsequent cases. See Ray v. Silverado Constructors, 98 Cal. App. 4th 1120
(2002) (holding that survivors were not barred under the Privette doctrine from asserting
liability against a general contractor who allegedly failed to observe safety measures on
the worksite); Tverberg, 202 Cal. App. 4th at 1439 (finding that an issue of material fact
as to whether a general contractor retained control over a jobsite in a manner that
affirmatively contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries precluded summary judgment).
Because Plaintiffs’ claim against R.D. Olson appears valid, this factor favors joinder.
6.

Prejudice to Plaintiffs

Finally, the Court considers whether denying joinder would prejudice the
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that they will suffer prejudice if not permitted to join R.D.
Olson, as they will be forced to litigate a redundant action in another forum with
potentially inconsistent results. Courts have found that this causes prejudice to plaintiffs.
See IBC Aviation, 125 F. Supp. 2d at 1013 (finding that denying leave to amend “would
require Plaintiff to choose between redundant litigation arising out of the same facts and
involving the same legal issues or foregoing its potential claims.”).
7.

Conclusion

The factors, when considered together, weigh heavily in favor of granting
Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint naming an additional non-diverse
Defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e) and remanding this matter to state court.
VI.

Disposition
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.

The Proposed Complaint is the operative Complaint as of this date and this action
is REMANDED to the California Superior Court, County of Orange.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 17-1188-DOC (KESx)

Date: November 15, 2017
Page 10

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: djl