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)
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?