Walth et al v. Staples the Office Superstore LLC, et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying ECF No. 4 Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (TR, Case Administrator)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 LEE WALTH and JANET WALTH, husband and wife and the marital community comprised thereof, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 NO: 2:17-CV-323-RMP ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE, LLC; STAPLES, INC; SPAR MARKETING FORCE, INC; and JOHN DOES 1-5, 13 Defendants. 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand this matter to state 16 court, ECF No. 4. The Court has reviewed the motion and all relevant filings, and is 17 fully informed. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiffs Lee and Janet Walth (“the Walths”) filed a civil tort action in 20 Spokane County Superior Court against Staples the Office Superstore, LLC; Staples, 21 Inc.; Spar Marketing Force, Inc.; and John Does 1-5 (collectively, “Defendants”). ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO REMAND ~ 1 1 ECF No. 1-2. On September 15, 2017, Defendant Spar Marketing Force removed 2 the action to federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. On October 3 9, 2017, the Walths filed this motion 1 to remand the matter to the Spokane County 4 Superior Court on the ground that all named Defendants had not consented to 5 removal. ECF No. 4. On October 12, 2017, the other named Defendants, Staples 6 the Office Superstore, LLC, and Staples, Inc., joined Defendant Spar Marketing 7 Force in removing the action to federal court. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Defendant Spar Marketing Force filed its Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 10 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which provides that defendants may remove a civil action brought 11 in a State court to the federal district court embracing the place where the action is 12 pending. Spokane County Superior Court is within the Eastern District of 13 Washington, where this Court sits. 14 The federal district court must have original jurisdiction over the action. § 15 1441(a). Defendant Spar Marketing Force filed its Notice of Removal on the basis 16 of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), asserting that the amount in 17 controversy exceeds $75,000 and that the Walths are citizens of a different state than 18 all named Defendants. ECF No. 1, at 2-3. The Walths’ complaint seeks damages 19 20 1 21 basis for considering this motion appropriate for ex parte filing. Although Plaintiffs filed this motion ex parte, the Court finds that there is no ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO REMAND ~ 2 1 for medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, pain and suffering, 2 and loss of consortium, which the Court concludes exceeds the $75,000 mark for 3 diversity jurisdiction cases. ECF No. 1-2, at 4. 4 In addition, section 1441 provides that, “[i]n determining whether a civil 5 action is removable on the basis of the jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)], the 6 citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.” § 7 1441(b). Therefore, the citizenship of the John Does 1-5 is immaterial to this 8 motion. The Walths are citizens of Spokane County, Washington. ECF No. 1-2, at 9 2. Defendant Spar Marketing Force is a Nevada domestic corporation with its 10 principal place of business in Michigan. ECF No. 1, at 2. Defendants Staples the 11 Office Superstore and Staples, Inc., are Delaware business entities with their 12 principal place of business in Massachusetts. Id. Therefore, the parties are diverse 13 for the purposes of § 1332(a). 14 The Walths seek to remand the action to State court on the ground that not all 15 Defendants had consented to removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). 16 When an action is removed under § 1441(a) all properly joined and served 17 defendants are required to join in or consent to the removal of the action. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1446(b)(2)(A). If all defendants have not joined the petition for removal when it is 19 filed, “the district court may allow the removing defendants to cure the defect by 20 obtaining joinder of all defendants prior to the entry of judgment.” Destfino v. 21 Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO REMAND ~ 3 1 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court finds that Defendants have cured the 2 procedural defect because Defendants Staples the Office Superstore and Staples, 3 Inc., the only named Defendants, have joined in the notice of removal. ECF No. 5. 4 5 6 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Remand, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to Plaintiffs. DATED October 16, 2017. 9 10 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION TO REMAND ~ 4

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?