Hazelwood et al v. A.W.Chesterton Company et al
Filing
33
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 31 RENEWED MOTION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/20/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
MOYER HAZELWOOD; and SUE
HAZELWOOD,
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’
RENEWED MOTION TO
REMAND (Docket No.
31)
Plaintiffs,
6
7
No. C 12-1313 CW
v.
9
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; PNEUMO
ABEX LLC, successor in interest
to ABEX CORPORATION; and
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
10
Defendants.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
11
12
________________________________/
Plaintiffs Moyer and Sue Hazelwood have renewed their motion
13
to remand to state court their case against Defendants Pneumo Abex
14
LLC, Honeywell International, Inc., and Carlisle Corporation.
15
Court takes judicial notice of the response to Plaintiffs’ motion
16
to remand filed by Pneumo Abex while this case was pending in the
17
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and takes the motion under
18
submission on the papers.
19
presented by the parties in their papers, the Court GRANTS
20
Plaintiffs’ motion.
The
Having considered the arguments
21
BACKGROUND
22
Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Alameda County
23
Superior Court on July 18, 2011, naming more than two dozen
24
corporations as Defendants.
25
On January 20, 2012, Plaintiffs served their settlement
26
conference statement pursuant to California Rule of Court section
27
3.1380(c), identifying as Defendants only Bridgestone Americas
28
Tire Operations, LLC, Pneumo Abex, Honeywell, Carlisle, Borg-
1
Warner Corporation, Kelsey Hayes Company, Eaton Corporation,
2
Thyssenkrupp Budd Corporation, Cummins, Inc. and Crane Co.
3
Decl., Ex. E.
4
California and none has its principal place of business inside of
5
California.
6
Worsey
Each of these Defendants is incorporated outside of
Worsey Decl., Exs. F-M.
On January 27, 2012, the mandatory settlement conference took
7
place.
8
Defendants named in Plaintiffs’ statement, except Crane Co.
9
Worsey Decl., Ex. O.
Worsey Decl. ¶ 25.
It was attended by counsel for the
Counsel also appeared on behalf of four
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants not named in the statement; three of these attorneys
11
also represented Defendants who were so named.
12
four additional Defendants is incorporated outside of California
13
and none has its principal place of business inside of California.
14
Worsey Decl., Exs. P-R.
15
presiding judge asked if any other Defendants were expected, and
16
Plaintiffs responded in the negative and informed the judge that
17
all remaining active Defendants were present and that all other
18
Defendants had either settled or “would be” dismissed.
19
Decl. ¶¶ 29-31.
20
Supply, Inc., a corporate citizen of California, prior to the
21
settlement conference.
22
Id.
Each of these
At the settlement conference, the
Worsey
Plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss Allied Packing &
Id. at ¶ 32.
On March 6, 2012, Plaintiffs emailed Pneumo Abex, Carlisle
23
and Honeywell a proposed joint juror questionnaire, which
24
identified only Pneumo Abex, Honeywell, Carlisle and Borg-Warner
25
as Defendants.
26
a non-California entity, had already settled with Plaintiffs and
27
was included inadvertently in Plaintiffs’ proposed questionnaire.
28
Id. at ¶ 46.
Worsey Decl. ¶¶ 42, 45, Ex. T.
2
Borg-Warner, also
1
On March 8, 2012, Carlisle emailed Plaintiffs, Honeywell and
2
Pneumo Abex a proposed joint juror questionnaire, which included
3
only Pneumo Abex, Honeywell and Carlisle as Defendants.
4
Decl. ¶¶ 43, 47, Ex. U.
5
Worsey
Also on March 8, 2012, Plaintiffs, Pneumo Abex, Honeywell and
6
Carlisle had a telephone conference and discussed the juror
7
questionnaire and other pretrial matters.
8
Plaintiffs state that the parties largely adopted the juror
9
questionnaire proposed by Carlisle.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Worsey Decl. ¶¶ 48-49.
On March 9, 2012, the state court held a pretrial conference.
11
Worsey Decl. ¶ 50.
12
Abex, Honeywell and Carlisle.
13
2012, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal without prejudice
14
against Allied Packing, and the Court dismissed Allied Packing.
15
Prior to the start of trial, between March 5 and 13, 2012,
The only attendees were Plaintiffs, Pneumo
Id.
On the same day, March 9,
16
the court held five additional days of settlement conferences.
17
Simes Decl. ¶ 4.
18
attended these sessions.
19
Cummins, another non-California entity, appeared on March 5 and 7,
20
2012 before settling with Plaintiffs.
21
conducted various other pretrial matters, including ruling on the
22
parties’ motions in limine on March 13, 2012.
23
(NOR), Ex. C (Trial Court docket).
Plaintiffs, Pneumo Abex, Honeywell and Carlisle
Id. at ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. A.
Id.
In addition,
The court also
Notice of Removal
24
On March 14, 2012, trial began in state court, and over that
25
day and the next, the state court went through the jury selection
26
process.
27
court or Plaintiffs that it intended to remove the case to federal
28
court.
During that time, Pneumo Abex never informed the state
3
1
On March 16, 2012, Pneumo Abex removed the case to this
2
Court, with the consent of Carlisle and Honeywell.
3
Pneumo Abex stated, “Plaintiffs have made clear their intent to
4
proceed to trial in the State Action against only Pneumo Abex,
5
Carlisle and Honeywell.
6
with Plaintiffs’ collaboration, prepared a Juror Questionnaire
7
that identifies as the only defendants Pneumo Abex, Carlisle and
8
Honeywell.”
9
timely because it “is filed within 30 days of March 9, 2012, when
NOR ¶ 10.
Docket No. 1.
Accordingly, the state court trial judge,
It further declared that the NOR was
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the last California-based defendant, Allied Packing & Supply,
11
Inc., was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs.”
12
13
Id. at ¶ 12.
On March 29, 2012, Plaintiffs moved to remand this case to
state court.
14
Docket No. 16.
On April 3, 2012, this Court received an order from the
15
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), transferring
16
the action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
17
26.
Docket No.
18
While the action was pending in the Eastern District of
19
Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs renewed their motion to remand, and
20
Pneumo Abex filed an opposition to it.
21
On April 30, 2012, Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in the Eastern
22
District of Pennsylvania filed a suggestion of remand with the
23
JPML, which issued a conditional remand order.
24
subsequently moved to vacate the conditional remand order.
25
26
27
28
Pneumo Abex
On June 8, 2012, the JPML denied Pneumo Abex’s motion, and
remanded the action to this Court.
On June 13, 2012, Plaintiffs renewed their motion to remand
again.
Docket No. 31.
4
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to
3
federal district court so long as the district court could have
4
exercised original jurisdiction over the matter.
5
§ 1441(a).
6
time before judgment, it appears that the district court lacks
7
subject matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from
8
state court, the case must be remanded.
9
the scope of the removal statute must be strictly construed.
28 U.S.C.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that if, at any
On a motion to remand,
Gaus
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
11
presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant
12
always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
13
Id.
14
remanding the case to state court.
“The ‘strong
Courts should resolve doubts as to removability in favor of
Id.
15
DISCUSSION
16
Plaintiffs contend that, by waiting to file its Notice of
17
Removal until March 16, 2012 after two days of jury selection had
18
taken place, Pneumo Abex waived its right to remove.
19
The Ninth Circuit recognizes that a defendant may waive its
20
right to remove a case to federal court.
21
Corp. v. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, 322 F.3d 635, 649 (9th
22
Cir. 2003); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d
23
1230, 1240 (9th Cir. 1994).
24
“‘waiver of the right of removal must be clear and unequivocal.’”
25
Resolution Trust Corp., 43 F.3d at 1240 (quoting Beighley v. FDIC,
26
868 F.2d 776, 782 (5th Cir. 1989).
27
removal is not lost by action in the state court short of
28
proceeding to an adjudication on the merits.’”
See, e.g., Eie Guam
It is well established that a
5
“In general, “the right of
Id. at 1240
1
(quoting Beighley, 868 F.2d at 782.
2
necessary defensive action to avoid a judgment being entered
3
automatically against him, such action does not manifest an intent
4
to litigate in state court, and accordingly does not waive the
5
right to remove.”
6
Thus, where “a party takes a
Id.
“However, it is also well established that a defendant ‘may
7
waive the right to remove to federal court where, after it is
8
apparent that the case is removable, the defendant takes actions
9
in state court that manifest his or her intent to have the matter
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
adjudicated there, and to abandon his or her right to a federal
11
forum.’”
12
1131 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (quoting Resolution Trust Corp., 43 F.3d at
13
1240)).
Acosta v. Direct Merchs. Bank, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1129,
14
While a “case may be properly removed shortly before or
15
during trial proceedings in state court, . . . [t]o avoid waiving
16
the right to remove when grounds for removal become apparent
17
during trial proceedings, defendants must usually take prompt
18
action.”
19
94637, at *6 (W.D. Wash.) (citations omitted).
20
v. A C & S Co., 683 F. Supp. 91, 95 (D. Del. 1988) (“When a case
21
is on trial and becomes removable, a defendant should notify the
22
state court of its intent to remove the action as soon as
23
practical, and certainly before any further evidence or
24
substantive matters are presented to the court.”); Moore’s Federal
25
Practice § 107.18 (recognizing “[c]ontinuing with state court
26
trial when case became removable early in the proceedings” as an
27
act that, “when taken by a defendant, constitute[s] a waiver of
28
the defendant’s right to remove to federal court”).
Barabin v. Albany Int’l Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
6
See also Mancari
For example,
1
in Waldron v. Skelly Oil Co., 101 F. Supp. 425 (D. Mo. 1951), the
2
court found that the defendant had waived its right to remove by
3
allowing the plaintiff’s attorney to dismiss the resident
4
defendants and continue to make his opening statement, without
5
interrupting the plaintiff’s counsel to request removal.
6
428 (noting that many courts have recognized that, “when a case
7
becomes removable during the process of a trial, the right to
8
remove may be waived by proceeding with the trial without
9
objection”).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Id. at
The cases cited by Pneumo Abex agree that a defendant must
11
notify the state court and plaintiffs of its intention to remove
12
before allowing the trial to advance to the next stage.
13
example, in Heniford v. Am. Motors Sales Corp., 471 F. Supp. 328
14
(D.S.C. 1979), the remarks of the plaintiff’s attorney in his
15
closing argument were effectively a dismissal of the non-diverse
16
defendant, leaving the non-resident defendant as the only
17
remaining defendant and making the case removable, and the
18
defendant filed a notice of removal on the following day.
19
331-32.
20
right to remove primarily because the defendant filed its removal
21
papers before the trial advanced to the next stage and could not
22
have averted additional proceedings in the state court by doing so
23
any sooner.
24
found that the defendant had waived its right to remove because it
25
“was aware of its right to remove this action sometime during the
26
evening of Monday, January 25th, and certainly no later than the
27
morning of Tuesday, January 26th, when the plaintiffs formally
28
notified the Court of the settlement with the other defendants,
For
Id. at
The court concluded that the defendant had not waived its
Id. at 336-37.
Conversely, in Mancari, the court
7
1
. . .
2
plaintiffs that it was contemplating removing the action to the
3
district court, and, in fact, . . . continued in the trial of the
4
matter” before removing the case on January 27, two days after it
5
learned that the action had become removable.
6
gave no indication to either the superior court or to the
683 F. Supp. at 95.
Here, Pneumo Abex knew of Plaintiffs’ abandonment of their
7
claims against any non-diverse Defendants at least by March 6,
8
2012, when Plaintiffs emailed their draft juror questionnaire to
9
the remaining Defendants, and conclusively by March 9, 2012, when
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
they formally dismissed Allied Trust.
11
believe since January 2012 that Plaintiffs did not plan to go
12
forward against Allied Trust, the last remaining California
13
Defendant, and had an abundance of time to contemplate its
14
actions.
Pneumo Abex had reason to
15
Yet Pneumo Abex failed to inform the state court promptly of
16
its desire to remove the case to federal court, as it became ever
17
more clear that it was removable.
18
various pretrial matters and the start of the jury trial before
19
filing its notice of removal, requiring the state court to devote
20
a considerable amount of its limited resources to these matters,
21
even though Pneumo Abex knew that such efforts would be wasted.
22
One hundred fifty citizens were called in for jury duty.
23
such delay especially prejudiced Plaintiffs in light of Moyer
24
Hazelwood’s advanced illness and limited life expectancy, of which
25
Pneumo Abex was well aware.
26
to federal court, its actions have continued to contribute to
27
delay and the unnecessary consumption of further judicial
Instead, it proceeded through
Further,
Since Pneumo Abex removed this case
28
8
1
resources, including those of this Court, the Eastern District of
2
Pennsylvania and the JPML.
3
The Court finds that, having unequivocally manifested its
4
intent to have the matter adjudicated in state court by commencing
5
with trial after they knew that the case had become removable,
6
Pneumo Abex and the other removing Defendants have waived their
7
rights to remove this case to federal court.
8
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The Court therefore
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’
11
renewed motion to remand (Docket No. 31).
12
be remanded, Honeywell International, Inc.’s motion for partial
13
summary judgment is DENIED as moot (Docket No. 29).
14
15
16
Because the case will
The Clerk shall remand this action to Alameda County Superior
Court and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
Dated: 6/20/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
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?