Badyal et al v. Bosch Packaging Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 5/20/11, ORDERING that the Court's Order 10 is VACATED, and Defendant's Motion for Relief from Remand 11 is GRANTED. Defendant RBPT is ordered to file its Amended Notice of Removal within 10 days of this Order being electronically filed. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIRANJEET BADYAL, an individual;
DILAWAR BADYAL, an individual,

No. 2:11-cv-00349-MCE-GGH

12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.

ORDER

14
15
16

BOSCH PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY,
INC.; SBM SCHOELLER-BLECKMAN
MEDIZINTECHNIK; KUHLMAN
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,

17
Defendants.
18
19

----oo0oo----

20
21

Through this personal injury action, Kiranjeet and Dilawar

22

Badyal (“Plaintiffs”) seek redress in connection with the

23

explosion of an autoclave sterilizer allegedly designed,

24

manufactured, and sold by Robert Bosch Packaging Technology, Inc.

25

(“RBPT”); SBM Schoeller-Bleckman Medizintechnik (“SBM”); and

26

Kuhlman Technologies, Inc. (“Kuhlman”).

27

action in Yolo County Superior Court.

28

removed to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
1

Plaintiffs filed this
On February 7, 2011, RBPT

1

After an initial review, the Court found jurisdiction

2

lacking, and remanded the case back to Superior Court on

3

February 25, 2011 (ECF No. 10).

4

that RBPT failed to properly allege that the parties were

5

sufficiently diverse in their Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1), and

6

therefore had not met its burden to establish proper subject

7

matter jurisdiction.

8
9

Specifically, the Court found

Defendant RBPT filed a Motion for Relief from Remand (ECF
No. 11), arguing that the parties should have had an opportunity

10

to amend any jurisdictional defects before remand.

Defendant

11

RBPT is correct, as the parties should have had an opportunity to

12

address any jurisdictional defects before the case was closed.

13

In their Proposed Amended Notice of Removal (ECF No. 12),

14

Defendant RBPT now states they are able to cure any

15

jurisdictional defects and, through research, have determined

16

that all parties are properly diverse in conformity with

17

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

18

Accordingly, the Court’s Order dated February 25, 2011 (ECF

19

No. 10) is VACATED and Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Remand

20

is GRANTED.

21

of Removal, proving proper jurisdiction, within ten (10) days of

22

this Order being electronically filed.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

Defendant RBPT is ordered to file its Amended Notice

2

1

Defendant’s failure to file a properly Amended Notice of

2

Removal will result in the case being remanded to Yolo County

3

Superior Court without further notice to the parties.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2011

6
7
8

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3