Golosiy v. Tintri, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER REMANDING CASE; remanding case to Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/20/17. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VLADIMIR GOLOSIY,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 17-cv-05876-YGR
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE
COURT

vs.
TINTRI, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

15
16

On October 13, 2017, defendants Tintri, Inc., et al. removed the above-captioned securities

17

class action alleging violations of 15 U.S.C. § 77 (the “Securities Act”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On October

18

18, 2017, this Court related the case sua sponte to Clayton v. Tintri, Inc., 17-cv-05683-YGR

19

(“Clayton”) and Nurlybayev v. Tintri, Inc., et al, 4:17-cv-05684-YGR (“Nurlybayev”). (Dkt. No.

20

16.) Clayton and Nurlybayev were remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California,

21

County of San Mateo (the “State Court”) on October 27, 2017, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 77(v)(a)

22

which states that “[e]xcept as provided in section 77p(c) of this title, no case arising under this

23

subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court

24

of the United States.” Plaintiff filed a timely motion to remand the above-captioned case to the

25

State Court on November 13, 2017. (Dkt. No. 23.) Defendants opposed plaintiff’s motion on

26

November 16, 2017. (Dkt. No. 25.)

27
28

Having carefully considered the briefings and the arguments of the parties, the Court
REMANDS the above-captioned case to the State Court.

1

I.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2

A. Removal Jurisdiction

3

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action could have

4

originally been filed in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A plaintiff may seek to have a case

5

remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or if

6

there is a defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removal statutes are

7

generally construed restrictively, so as to limit removal jurisdiction. See Shamrock Oil & Gas

8

Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). Typically a “strong presumption” exists against

9

finding removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden
of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., 775 F.3d 1193, 1199 (9th Cir. 2015); Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs.

12

LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013). Doubts as to removability are generally resolved in favor

13

of remanding the case to state court. See Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d

14

1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

15

B. The Securities Act of 1933

16

“The Securities Act of 1933, which imposes liability for omissions and misstatements in

17

various securities-related communications, provides concurrent jurisdiction in state and federal

18

courts over alleged violations of the Act. “ Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533

19

F.3d 1031, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008). However, Section 77v(a) of the Securities Act “strictly forbids

20

the removal of cases brought in state court and asserting claims under the Act.” Id. (highlighting

21

“the specific bar against removal of cases under the ‘33 Act” (emphasis in original)).

22

Pursuant to Section 77v(a), “[e]xcept as provided in section 77p(c) of this title, no case

23

arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be

24

removed to any court of the United States.” A litany of courts in this district have characterized

25

Section 77v(a) as an “anti-removal provision.” Seafarers Officers & Emps. Pension Plan v. Apigee

26

Corp., No. 17-cv-04106-JD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142292, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017); Elec.

27

Workers Local #357 Pension & Health & Trs. v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1172,

28

1178 (N.D. Cal. 2016); Buelow v. Alibaba Grp. Holding Ltd., No. 15-cv-05179-BLF, 2016 U.S.
2

1

Dist. LEXIS 7444 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016); City of Warren Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Revance

2

Therapeutics, Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Plymouth Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Model N,

3

Inc., No. 14-cv-04516-WHO, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1104 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015); Liu v. Xoom

4

Corp., No. 15-cv-00602-LHK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82830 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2015); Toth v.

5

Envivo, Inc., No. C 12-5636 CW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147569, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013);

6

Cervantes v. Dickerson, No. 15-cv-3825-PJH, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143390 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21,

7

2015); Desmarais v. Johnson, No. C 13-03666 WHA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153165, at *8-*9

8

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013); Harper v. Smart Techs Inc., No. C 11-5232 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist.

9

LEXIS 191130, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012).
“The exception in Section 77p(c) states that ‘[a]ny covered class action brought in any

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

State court involving a covered security, as set forth in subsection [77p](b), shall be removable to

12

the Federal district court for the district in which the action is pending, and shall be subject to

13

subsection (b).’” Apigee, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142292, at *1-2 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 77p(c)). In

14

turn, section 77p(b) “defines a set of cases that Congress determined cannot be brought in any

15

court,” namely “covered class action[s] based upon the statutory or common law of any State or

16

subdivision thereof .” Id. (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b)). The Supreme Court has indicated that

17

removal under section 77p(c) is “limited to those [cases] precluded by the terms of subsection

18

(b).” Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633, 643 (2006). Put differently, removal is only

19

proper where necessary to “avoid an end-run around the federal securities laws by cases asserting

20

state-law claims.” Apigee, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142292, at *3 (citing Kircher, 547 U.S. at 643-

21

44).

22

II.

23

DISCUSSION
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Luther and copious case law in this district, the

24

Court finds that removal is barred under Section 77v(a). “More than twenty district courts in the

25

Ninth Circuit have addressed this issue and remanded to state court every time.” Apigee, 2017

26

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142292, at *3 (collecting cases). “The Court sees no good reason to reconsider

27

the question or depart from these consistent and considered decisions.” Id.

28

Defendants argue that this Court should decline to remand the above-captioned case based
3

1

on an argument which this Court previously rejected in Clayton and Nurlybayev, namely that this

2

Court should defer consideration until the Supreme Court’s decision in Cyan. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1;

3

Clayton Dkt. No. 23 at 4:1-20; Nurlybayev Dkt. No. 16 at 4:1-20.) Here, defendant offers no new

4

arguments, facts or developments that compel a different result in this action. Accordingly, the Court

5

REMANDS the above-captioned case to State Court.

6

III. CONCLUSION

7
8
9
10

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiffs’ motions to REMAND the above captioned cases
to state court are GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court shall remand and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: November 20, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4