Ervin v. Ballard Marine Construction, Inc.
Filing
16
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND. The request for attorney's fees and costs is DENIED. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/11/2016. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DALE H. ERVIN,
Case No. 16-cv-02931-WHO
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
BALLARD MARINE CONSTRUCTION,
INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 9
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
13
Plaintiff Dale H. Ervin, Jr. moves to remand this case to Alameda County Superior Court
14
alleging that: (1) defendant Ballard Marine Construction, Inc.’s (Ballard) removal was untimely;
15
(2) plaintiff’s Jones Act claim precludes removal; and (3) Ballard owes plaintiff attorney’s fees
16
because it had no objectively reasonable basis for removing this case to federal court. Ballard’s
17
notice of removal was untimely because it had notice of the facts demonstrating diversity by
18
December 30, 2015, but its notice of removal was not filed until June 1, 2016, more than four
19
months too late. It is unnecessary to determine whether the Jones Act also precludes removal.
20
Ervin’s motion to remand is GRANTED. His request for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED
21
because the removal to federal court was not “objectively unreasonable.”
22
23
BACKGROUND
Ballard employed Ervin as a commercial diver. In February 2014, Ervin was diving from
24
an anchored crane barge in Crystal Springs Reservoir in San Mateo County, California when
25
Ballard’s topside crew dropped a piece of marine equipment, known as an “air lift,” from a height
26
of more than fifty feet onto Ervin’s “left shoulder, hip, and back, driving him deeper into the mud
27
and knocking him unconscious.” Compl. ¶ 9. Ballard’s crew dropped the item after falsely
28
representing to Ervin that “the air lift had been heaved out of the water and placed safely on deck
1
of the crane barge.” Id. ¶ 8. As a result of the accident, Ervin suffered permanent and disabling
2
spine injuries.
3
Ervin filed his Complaint against Ballard in Alameda County Superior Court on August
4
25, 2015, and served the Complaint on September 8, 2015. The Complaint seeks damages in
5
excess of $25,000 and asserts three causes of action: (1) gross negligence under the Jones Act; (2)
6
violation of “the provisions of the General Maritime Law of the United States;” and (3) California
7
common law negligence. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8, 9.
8
The Complaint alleges that “[a]t all times material hereto, [Ervin] was, and still is, an adult
resident of the State of Oregon.” Id. ¶ 1. The Complaint states that Ballard was doing business in
10
California, but did not allege Ballard’s place of incorporation or principal place of business. Id. ¶
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
4. Ballard admitted in its Notice of Removal that it “is, and was at the time the plaintiff filed his
12
complaint, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, with its principal
13
place of business in the State of Washington and is the only defendant that has been served with
14
summons in this action.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2.
15
On December 30, 2015, Ervin sent Ballard a case management statement explaining that
16
Ervin was seeking “damages due to personal injuries of $1.5 million and future medical expenses
17
totaling $350,000.” Compl., Ex. F. In March 2016, Ervin admitted that Crystal Springs is not a
18
“navigable” body of water for purposes of determining admiralty jurisdiction. Declaration of Max
19
L. Kelley (Dkt. No. 11-1), Ex. 1 at 3. In May 2016, Ervin responded to a special interrogatory
20
stating that he has resided in California “for the last twelve years” and “has no plans to reside
21
anywhere else.” Id., Ex. 2 at 3.
22
On June 1, 2016, Ballard filed a notice of removal on the ground that: “This is a civil
23
action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and is one which may
24
be removed to this Court by defendant under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), in that it is a civil
25
action between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000[.]”
26
Notice at 2.
27
28
LEGAL STANDARD
A defendant sued in state court may remove the action to federal court if the action could
2
1
have been brought in federal court in the first instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The notice of
2
removal “shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or
3
otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action
4
or proceeding is based….” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). “[I]f the case stated by the initial pleading is
5
not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant,
6
through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from
7
which it may be first ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28
8
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
9
“The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal
requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
1244 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941)
12
(noting that “federal courts [must] scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits
13
which the statute has defined”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “An order
14
remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney
15
fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
DISCUSSION
16
17
18
I. REMAND IS WARRANTED BECAUSE BALLARD’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL WAS
UNTIMELY
Ervin argues that Ballard knew everything that it needed to ascertain diversity jurisdiction
19
by December 30, 2015, and so the notice of removal filed on June 1, 2016 far exceeded the thirty20
day deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Motion at 5. Ballard counters that Ervin merely stated that
21
he was a “resident of Oregon” in the Complaint, so it could not ascertain Ervin’s citizenship for
22
purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction until May 4, 2016, when he admitted to having
23
resided in California “for the last twelve years” and “ha[d] no plans to reside anywhere else.”
24
Opp. at 4.
25
There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction that the defendant has the
26
27
burden of overcoming. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citing
28
3
1
Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). If the facts in the initial
2
pleading are insufficient to establish diversity of citizenship, a notice of removal may be filed
3
within 30 days of an amended pleading or other paper “from which it may be first ascertained that
4
the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). The issue here is
5
whether Ervin’s Complaint, in combination with his request for $1.8 million in damages on
6
December 30, 2015, was sufficient to trigger the 30-day time limit to file for removal which would
7
have expired on January 30, 2015. It was.
8
Ballard argues that the 30-day limit for filing a notice of removal was not triggered until
the May 2016 interrogatory because “the citizenship of the plaintiff was not ascertainable from the
10
operative complaint.” Opp. at 1. Ballard relies on two cases, Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) and Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001).
12
Both cases suggest that an allegation of residency does not necessarily establish citizenship for
13
purposes of diversity jurisdiction, but they are inapposite to this case. While Kanter distinguished
14
between residency and citizenship, the focus of that opinion was what a defendant needed to allege
15
in its notice of removal (as opposed to whether allegations in a complaint put defendant on notice
16
of diversity jurisdiction). Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857 (“Absent unusual circumstances, a party
17
seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship
18
of the relevant parties.” (emphasis added, internal citation omitted)). Here, Ervin is not the party
19
seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction, Ballard is. “The defendant’s right to remove and the
20
plaintiff’s right to choose the forum are not equal, and uncertainties are resolved in favor of
21
remand.” 16 Moore’s Federal Practice § 107.05 (3rd ed. 2015) (internal citations omitted).
22
Harris is distinguishable because the complaint in that case only listed the plaintiff’s
23
former residence, and had no facts regarding residency or citizenship at the time the complaint
24
was filed. Here, Ervin clearly stated he was a resident of Oregon “[a]t all times material hereto.”
25
But see Harris at 695-96 (“[T]he initial pleading only stated Brown’s 1972 residency, not his
26
citizenship, and certainly not his citizenship as of the filing of the complaint.”).
27
28
While the Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed the issue of whether residence equates
to domicile, see Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance, 736 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2013),
4
1
other courts have treated a person’s residence as prima facie evidence of his domicile. See, e.g.
2
Anderson v. Watts, 11 S.Ct. 449, 452 (1891) (“The place where a person lives is taken to be his
3
domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary.”); Hollinger v. Home State Mut. Ins. Co., 654
4
F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Evidence of a person’s place of residence, however, is prima facie
5
proof of his domicile.” (internal citations omitted)); Hester v. Horowitz, No. 14-00413 JMS-RLP,
6
2015 WL 127890, at *2 (D. Haw. Jan. 8, 2015) (“Although residence alone is not the equivalent of
7
citizenship, ‘the place of residence is prima facie the domicile.’” (internal citations omitted)); see
8
also 13E Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3612 n.28 (3d ed. 2013) (“It is
9
assumed… that a person’s current residence is also his domicile…”). To be sure, other circuits
have found that “state citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction depends not on residence,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
but on national citizenship and domicile.” See, e.g., Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Carroll Carolina Oil Co.
12
Inc., 145 F.3d 660, 663 (4th Cir. 1998); McNair v. Synapse Group Inc., 672 F.3d 213, 219 n.4 (3rd
13
Cir. 2012); Siloam Springs Hotel, L.L.C. v. Century Sur. Co., 781 F.3d 1233, 1239 (10th Cir.
14
2015).1 But like Kanter, those cases focused on the removing party’s burden to establish diversity
15
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Axel at 663 (finding that the removing party failed to establish diversity
16
jurisdiction either “in the district court [o]r before this court.”).
17
Courts within this district have also found that diversity jurisdiction exists based on
18
assertions of residence, absent evidence about domicile to the contrary. See, e.g., Banga v.
19
Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 14-cv-03038-WHO, 2014 WL 4954677, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2,
20
2014) (“The notice of removal’s allegation that Banga resides in California, combined with
21
Banga’s own assertions that she is a California resident and that diversity of citizenship exists
22
between the parties, is sufficient to show that Banga is domiciled in California.”); Bergman v.
23
Bank of Am., No. 13-cv-00741-JCS, 2013 WL 5863057, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) (“A
24
party’s residence is prima facie evidence of domicile.” (internal citations omitted)); Zavala v.
25
1
26
27
28
See also 177P- Moore’s Federal Practice § 1.04 (3d ed. 2003): “29 U.S.C. § 1391 clarifies that
the word ‘residence’ for a ‘natural person’ means ‘domicile.’ The reason for this amendment is
that some courts had found that the meaning of ‘resides’ was broader than the meaning of
‘domicile.’ So, as the House Report notes, it would be possible to permit a court to find that
venue is proper in a district in which a party had a summer home.” (citing H.R. Report, 112-10, at
21).
5
1
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, No. C 13-1040 LB, 2013 WL 3474760, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
2
July 10, 2013) (“[T]he complaint indicates that Zavala resides in California… In the absence of
3
evidence to the contrary, Zavala is a California citizen for diversity purposes.” (internal citation
4
omitted)).
Here, the Complaint put Ballard on notice that Ervin was a resident of Oregon and,
5
6
therefore, diverse from Ballard. 2 Therefore, the 30-day limit was triggered on December 30,
7
2015, when it became reasonably ascertainable that diversity of citizenship existed and that the
8
requested damages exceeded $75,000. Because Ballard failed to remove within 30 days of having
9
notice that diversity jurisdiction existed, it is unnecessary to address Ervin’s Jones Act claim for
purposes of determining removal jurisdiction.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
II. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS ARE NOT WARRANTED
12
Where a plaintiff successfully obtains an order remanding an action to state court the court
13
may award “just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the
14
removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court has “wide discretion” in deciding to award fees. Moore
15
v. Permanente Med. Grp, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 1992). “Absent unusual circumstances,
16
courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an
17
objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S.
18
132, 141 (2005). Attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded if removal “was wrong as a matter of
19
law,” Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 340 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2003), even if the
20
defendant’s removal was “fairly supportable,” Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208
21
F.3d 1102, 1106 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000).
Ervin argues that fees are warranted because, “the caselaw interpreting § 1446(b) clearly
22
23
establishes that Ballard’s time to file a notice of removal expired thirty days after it received a
24
copy of Ervin’s December 30, 2015 case management conference statement.” Motion at 15-16.
25
While the procedural requirements of § 1446(b) are clear, I find that it was not objectively
26
unreasonable for Ballard to rely on Harris and Kanter in concluding that an allegation of
27
2
28
No one contends that the fact that Ervin subsequently disclosed that his residence was in
California, not Oregon, alters the analysis.
6
1
residency is insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. The cases do distinguish between
2
residency and citizenship and indicate that a specific allegation of citizenship is required to
3
support removal by defendants. The reasoning in those cases is just not applicable here. Because
4
the Court cannot say that removal was objectively unreasonable, an award of fees or costs is
5
unwarranted.
CONCLUSION
6
7
For the reasons above, the motion to remand is GRANTED and the request for attorney’s
8
fees and costs is DENIED. This action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
9
California for the County of Alameda.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 11, 2016
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
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?