Blanchard et al v. Fluent, Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING STIPULATIONS; EXTENDING FILING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING DATE. The deadline for Fluent to file its responses to plaintiffs' motion and the Court's order to show cause is extended to May 18, 2017. The deadline for plaintiffs' replies is extended to May 25, 2017. The hearing is continued to June 9, 2017. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 05/11/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MIRA BLANCHARD, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-01551-MMC v. FLUENT, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING STIPULATIONS; EXTENDING FILING DEADLINES AND CONTINUING HEARING DATE Re: Dkt. Nos. 24, 25 12 13 On March 22, 2017, defendant Fluent, Inc. (“Fluent”) removed the instant action on 14 the asserted basis of diversity jurisdiction. On April 3, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to 15 remand and, on April 4, 2017, the Court, based on a different ground, specifically, 16 defendants’ failure to demonstrate the citizenship of a number of entity defendants and 17 several individual defendants, issued an order directing Fluent to show cause why the 18 action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Order to Show 19 Cause at 2:6-8.) 20 Now before the Court are two stipulations, (1) a stipulation, filed May 5, 2017, to 21 allow plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint; and (2) a stipulation, filed May 8, 22 2017, to extend, pending plaintiffs’ filing of a revised motion to remand, Fluent’s deadline 23 to respond to plaintiffs’ motion to remand and the Court’s order to show cause, both of 24 which were due no later than May 8, 2017. The Court, having reviewed the two 25 stipulations, rules as follows. 26 “[F]ederal removal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity . . . is determined (and must 27 exist) as of the time the complaint is filed and removal is effected.” See Strotek Corp. v. 28 Air Transport Ass’n of America, 300 F.3d 1129, 1131 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, as set forth in 1 the Court’s Order to Show Cause, there has been no showing that the parties in the 2 instant action were diverse at the time of removal. Under such circumstances, the Court 3 finds it preferable to defer the filing of an amended complaint until such time as the Court 4 has resolved the question of removal jurisdiction. If defendants succeed in establishing 5 removal jurisdiction, the Court will then determine the effect of any post-removal 6 amendment to name additional parties. 7 Accordingly, (1) the parties’ stipulation to file the proposed Second Amended 8 Complaint is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to refiling after the issue of removal 9 jurisdiction is resolved, and (2) the parties’ stipulation to continue Fluent’s response 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 deadlines in light of such amended pleading is hereby DENIED as moot. As Fluent may have relied on the pending stipulations, however, the Court hereby 12 EXTENDS to May 18, 2017, the deadline for Fluent to file its responses to plaintiffs’ 13 motion and the Court’s order. 14 In light of the above extension, the deadlines for plaintiffs’ replies are 15 correspondingly EXTENDED to May 25, 2017, and the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion is 16 hereby CONTINUED from June 2, 2017, to June 9, 2017. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: May 11, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?