Lapointe et al v. 3M Company et al

Filing 87

ORDER granting 64 Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Remand Per LCR 3(i), case will be remanded to the Pierce County Superior Court 14 days from the date of this Order, on 11/5/2018; Boeing's request for "jurisdictional discovery" is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions is DENIED; all other pending motions are denied as moot; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

RAYMOND A. LAPOINTE, et al.,

CASE NO. C18-5437 RBL

9
Plaintiffs,
10

v.

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND

3M COMPANY, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff LaPoint’s (Second) 1 Motion to Remand.

15

Lapoint claims that Defendant Boeing’s removal in diversity jurisdiction grounds was improper

16

because it concedes it “does not know” the citizenship of another defendant, Metalclad Insulation

17

LLC. LaPoint argues that because one of the members of that LLC is itself an LLC, the

18

citizenship of the members of that second LLC determine Metalclad’s citizenship.

19

Boeing responds that Local Rule 101 only “requires identification of citizenship to the

20

extent possible,” and emphasizes that it has undertaken Herculean efforts to determine the

21

citizenship of the members of the LLC that is in turn one of the members of Metalclad LLC.

22
23
24

1

In response to the first, Boeing sought and received leave to file a corrected notice of removal. It did so and the
Court denied LaPoint’s first motion to remand. LaPoint’s second motion argues that the revised notice is also
defective.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND - 1

1

Under Conrad Associates v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196

2

(N.D. Cal. 1998) and numerous other authorities, the party asserting federal jurisdiction has the

3

burden of proof on a motion to remand to state court. The removal statute is strictly construed

4

against removal jurisdiction. The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the

5

defendant always has the burden of establishing removal is proper. Conrad, 994 F. Supp. at

6

1198. It is obligated to do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1199; see also Gaus v.

7

Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042

8

(9th Cir. 2009). Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of

9

removal in the first instance. Id. at 566.

10

The Court is more than a little reluctant to remand the case and re-set the trial date and

11

related scheduling. It is not fair to the state court and it is not fair to the parties. It is yet another waste

12

of judicial resources—which is not uncommon, unfortunately, in this case and generally. But LaPoint

13

is correct: diversity is not complete—and § 1332 jurisdiction is therefore unavailable—if “any

14

plaintiff is a citizen of the same State as any defendant.” Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437

15
16
17
18

U.S. 365, 374 (1978). The parties do not know, and the Court does not know, whether there is
complete diversity.
When there is such uncertainty, a Federal District Court does not have diversity jurisdiction.
If and to the extent Local Rule 101 holds that “doing the best you can” to determine citizenship is
sufficient, it is simply not correct. The Supreme Court, Congress, and countless other courts have for

19
years clearly spelled out what to do when it is not clear that there is diversity jurisdiction: remand the

20
case for lack of diversity jurisdiction.

21
Boeing’s request for “jurisdictional discovery” is DENIED; it has already claimed it has

22
done all it can to determined Metalclad’s citizenship and come up empty. LaPoint’s Motion to

23
Remand is GRANTED and this case is REMANDED to Pierce County Superior Court. LaPoint’s

24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND - 2

1

Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. All other pending motions are denied as moot, and should be

2

addressed to the state court.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 19th day of October, 2018.

A

5
6

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND - 3