Wilmington Trust Company et al v. The Boeing Company et al

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting the 28 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. # 17 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (LH)

Case 2:20-cv-00402-RSM-MAT Document 38 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, et al.,

CASE NO. C20-0402-RSM-MAT
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
MOTION TO REMAND

Defendants.

11
12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ objections (Dkt. #36) to the Report and

14

Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler (Dkt. #28).

15

Judge Theiler’s R&R recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion for remand to state

16

court. Dkt. #28. Defendant, The Boeing Company (“Boeing”), responds to Plaintiffs’ objections,

17

arguing in support of the R&R and its removal of this action. Dkt. #37. The Court, being fully

18

informed and having considered the matter, adopts the R&R in full.

19

A motion to remand to state court is dispositive. Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th

20

Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs’ objections to the R&R means that the Court “must determine de novo any

21

part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

22

“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

23

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

ORDER - 1

Case 2:20-cv-00402-RSM-MAT Document 38 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3

1

Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ objections and the appropriate portions of the R&R de novo,

2

the Court concludes that the objections merely rehash arguments Judge Theiler already addressed

3

in the R&R. The Court wholly agrees with the facts, law, analysis, and conclusions as set forth in

4

the R&R. To avoid duplication of the R&R the Court provides only a brief discussion.

5

Plaintiffs argue that the R&R conflicts with this Court’s prior precedent. Dkt. #36 at 9

6

(citing Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. UnitedHealth Grp. Inc., Case No. 13-cv-732-RSM,

7

2013 WL 3814387, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 22, 2013)). But the R&R correctly considered Safeco

8

Ins. Co. of Am. at length and discussed the distinguishing features of the two cases throughout.1

9

Dkt. #28 at 7–8, 11–12, 14. Plaintiffs also argue that the R&R incorrectly applied factual and legal

10

presumptions. Essentially, Plaintiffs argue that upon a plaintiff’s conclusory motion to remand

11

the removing defendant must prove all jurisdictional facts beyond “any doubt” to defeat remand.

12

Dkt. #36 at 12–13. But the R&R correctly placed the burden on Boeing to establish that its nerve

13

center is not located in Washington in accordance with the appropriate legal framework and the

14

Supreme Court’s guidance that the jurisdictional determination should “remain as simple as

15

possible.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010).

16

Accordingly, and having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Dkt. #17), the Report

17

and Recommendation of Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #28), Plaintiffs’

18

Objections (Dkt. #36), Defendant’s Response (Dkt. #37), and the remaining record, the Court does

19
20
21
22
23

1

Most notably, the business entities considered in the two cases were of different legal status. In
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., the Court considered the nerve center of a separately incorporated
subsidiary. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2013 WL 3814387, at *1. Here, Plaintiffs focus on the activity
of Boeing Commercial Airplanes—one of at least three unincorporated business units/divisions
within Boeing. Dkt. #22 at ¶ 4. “Pursuant to Ninth Circuit law, an unincorporated division of a
corporation ‘is not an independent entity for jurisdictional purposes.’ Dkt. #28 at 14 (citing
Breitman v. May Co. Cal., 37 F.3d 562, 564 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and quotation marks
omitted)).

ORDER - 2

Case 2:20-cv-00402-RSM-MAT Document 38 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 3

1

hereby find and ORDER:

2

(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #28) is ADOPTED;

3

(2)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand to State Court (Dkt. #17) is DENIED; and

4

(3)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable

5
6

Mary Alice Theiler.
DATED this 15th day of July, 2020.

7

A

8

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER - 3