1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADIRONDACK INSURANCE Case No. 8:24-cv-01134-JWH-MRW EXCHANGE; Case No. 8:24-cv-01139-JWH-AGR 12 ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY;

13 ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

INSURANCE COMPANY; MOTIONS TO REMAND CASES

14 ALLSTATE INDEMNITY TO ORANGE COUNTY

COMPANY; SUPERIOR COURT

15 ALLSTATE INSURANCE

COMPANY;

16 ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY

INSURANCE COMPANY;

17 ALLSTATE NEW JERSEY

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY

18 INSURANCE COMPANY;

ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK

19 INDEMNITY COMPANY;

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND

20 CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY;

21 CENTURYNATIONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY;

22 DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY;

23 DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY;

24 DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY;

ENCOMPASS HOME AND AUTO

25 INSURANCE COMPANY;

ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY

26 COMPANY;

ENCOMPASS PROPERTY AND

27 CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY;

1 ESURANCE INSURANCE

COMPANY;

2 ESURANCE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY;

3 ESURANCE PROPERTY AND

CASUALTY INSURANCE

4 COMPANY;

IMPERIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY

5 INSURANCE COMPANY;

INTEGON GENERAL INSURANCE

6 CORPORATION;

INTEGON INDEMNITY

7 CORPORATION;

INTEGON NATIONAL

8 INSURANCE COMPANY;

INTEGON PREFERRED

9 INSURANCE COMPANY;

MIC GENERAL INSURANCE

10 CORPORATION;

NATIONAL GENERAL

11 INSURANCE COMPANY;

NATIONAL GENERAL

12 INSURANCE ONLINE, INC.;

NEW SOUTH INSURANCE

13 COMPANY;

PERSONAL EXPRESS INSURANCE

14 SERVICES, INC.;

QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION;

15 SAFE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY; and 16 STANDARD PROPERTY AND

CASUALTY INSURANCE

17 COMPANY,

18 Plaintiffs,

19 v.

20 KIA CORPORATION,

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

21 HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, and

KIA AMERICA, INC.,

22 Defendants. 23

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS

24 INSURANCE COMPANY,

25 Plaintiff,

26 v.

27 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY,

1 KIA CORPORATION,

2 Defendants.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Before the Court are the two nearly identical motions1 filed by Plaintiffs in 2 the above-captioned related cases2 to remand these actions to Orange County 3 Superior Court. Defendants Hyundai Motor America; Hyundai Motor 4 Company; Kia America, Inc.; and Kia Corporation—the same Defendants in 5 each case—removed each case from Orange County Superior Court to this 6 Court pursuant to the doctrine of “snap removal,” which requires some 7 explanation. 8 After a plaintiff files a case in state court, a defendant may remove that 9 case to federal court pursuant to, among other jurisdictional doctrines, diversity 10 jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (stating that district courts “have original 11 1 See Mot. to Remand [ECF No. 18 in Case No. 8:24-cv-01134-JWH-MRW 12 (the “Adirondack Case”)]; Mot. to Remand [ECF No. 19 in Case 13 No. 8:24-cv-01139-JWH-AGR (the “New Jersey Manufacturers Case”)] (jointly, the “Motions”); see also Notice of Related Case(s) [ECF No. 4 in each case]. 14 2 Plaintiffs in the Adirondack Case are Adirondack Insurance Exchange; 15 Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company; Allstate Fire And Casualty 16 Insurance Company; Allstate Indemnity Company; Allstate Insurance Company; Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company; Allstate New Jersey 17 Property And Casualty Insurance Company; Allstate Northbrook Indemnity 18 Company; Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company; Centurynational 19 Insurance Company; Direct General Insurance Company; Direct General Insurance Company of New Jersey; Direct Insurance Company; Encompass 20 Home and Auto Insurance Company; Encompass Indemnity Company; 21 Encompass Property and Casualty Insurance Company of New Jersey; Esurance Insurance Company; Esurance Insurance Company of New Jersey; Esurance 22 Property and Casualty Insurance Company; Imperial Fire and Casualty 23 Insurance Company; Integon General Insurance Corporation; Integon Indemnity Corporation; Integon National Insurance Company; Integon 24 Preferred Insurance Company; MIC General Insurance Corporation; National 25 General Insurance Company; National General Insurance Online, Inc.; New 26 South Insurance Company; Personal Express Insurance Services, Inc.; QBE Insurance Corporation; Safe Auto Insurance Company; and Standard Property 27 and Casualty Insurance Company. Plaintiff in the New Jersey Manufacturers 1 jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 2 or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of 3 different states”). But, even if the parties are diverse, a defendant who is a 4 citizen of the state in which the action is filed may not remove that action to 5 federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 6 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Separate and apart from the statute conferring 7 diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, § 1441(b) confines removal on the basis 8 of diversity jurisdiction to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum 9 state.”). That limitation on a defendant’s right to remove a case is known as the 10 “forum defendant rule.” Id. 11 Some courts allow a defendant who is a citizen of the state in which the 12 case was filed to circumvent the forum defendant rule by removing the action to 13 federal court before that defendant is formally served—a process commonly 14 known as “snap removal.”3 This potential loophole exists because the statute 15 that establishes the forum defendant rule explicitly prohibits a non-diverse 16 defendant who has been “properly joined and served” from removing the case 17 based upon diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action 18 otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) 19 of this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined 20 and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is 21 brought.”) (emphasis added). 22 Here, Plaintiffs assert that the forum defendant rule bars removal of the 23 cases because Defendants Hyundai Motor America and Kia America, Inc. are 24 citizens of California; Plaintiffs argue that the Court should not accept snap 25 removal as a justification for skirting the forum defendant rule.4 26

27 3 See Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1 in each case]. 1 A circuit split exists regarding the acceptability of snap removal, and to 2 date the Ninth Circuit has explicitly declined to rule on the issue. See, e.g., 3 Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2024) (explicitly not 4 resolving the issue in the Ninth Circuit but determining that a forum defendant 5 cannot remove the action before it is even filed in state court). In the absence of 6 binding authority, based upon its exhaustive review of recent caselaw, this Court 7 chooses to reject snap removal.5 Indeed, another court in this District recently 8 remanded four other cases that Defendants in this case list as related. See Allied 9 Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Hyundai Motor America; Alliance 10

11 5 In the following 16 cases, the Court rejected snap removal and remanded 12 the action: Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company et al v. Hyundai Motor America et al, Alliance United Insurance Company et al v. Hyundai Motor America 13 et al, Erie Insurance Company et al v. Hyundai Motor America et al, and Country 14 Casualty Insurance Company et al v. Hyundai Motor America et al (combined cases), 2024 WL 3495340 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2024); Badger v. Inari Med., Inc., 15 2024 WL 3276202 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2024); Hershey v. Lab’y Corp. of Am. 16 Holdings, 2024 WL 2958947 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2024); Ebadat v. Philly Auto Inc., 2024 WL 2732233 (C.D. Cal. May 28, 2024); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Pac. Life 17 Ins. Co., 2023 WL 8890832 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023); Stevenson v. Apyx Med. 18 Corp., 2023 WL 6387307 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2023); Parra v. Citizens Telecom 19 Servs. Co. LLC, 2023 WL 5044925 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023); Menchaca v. Howmet Aerospace, Inc., 2023 WL 2504995 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2023); Guillen v. 20 Vie De France Yamazaki, Inc., 2022 WL 3211219 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022); Ross 21 v. United Airlines, Inc., 2022 WL 1302680 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2022); La Bella v. Bamboo IDE8 Ins. Servs., 2022 WL 1045968 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2022); 22 Woolfenden v. Target Corp., 2021 WL 6618635 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2021); and 23 Gralnik v. DXC Tech., Inc., 2021 WL 5203333 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2021). In the following six cases, the Court accepted snap removal: Zalvin v. Carrel, 2024 WL 24 1121790 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024); Kornfeind v. Kia Am., Inc., 2023 WL 8456111 25 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2023); Lawton v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., 2023 WL 8018100 26 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023); Harrison v. Sonesta Int’l Hotels Corp., 2023 WL 5351873 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2023); Hong Kong Cont’l Trade Co. Ltd. v. Nat. 27 Balance Pet Foods, Inc., 2023 WL 2664246 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2023); and Choi v. 1 United Insurance Company v. Hyundai Motor America; Erie Insurance Company v. 2 Hyundai Motor America; and Country Casualty Insurance Company v. Hyundai 3 Motor America (combined cases), 2024 WL 3495340 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2024). 4 Moreover, in the context of class actions, the Ninth Circuit appears to have 5 rejected the analog of snap removal under the Class Action Fairness Act. See 6 generally Singh v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., 925 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2019). 7 Defendants invite the Court’s attention to supplemental authority— 8 Mayes v. Am. Hallmark Ins. Co. of Texas, 2024 WL 3894306 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 9 2024)—in support of their argument that this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ 10 instant Motions and accept snap removal.6 Defendants contend that remand is 11 improper because in Mayes, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that a defendant may 12 remove a case when the defendant becomes aware of the complaint but has not 13 yet been served.7 See id. at *2-*3. But Mayes did not deal with snap removal 14 because the removing defendant, American Hallmark Insurance Company of 15 Texas, was diverse from the plaintiff, a resident of Oregon. See Mayes v. Am. 16 Hallmark Ins. Co. of Texas, 2021 WL 6127887, at *1 (D. Or. Nov. 15, 2021). 17 Therefore, Mayes does not alter the Court’s conclusion with respect to the 18 impropriety of snap removal. 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 20 1. Plaintiffs’ instant Motions to remand are GRANTED. 21 22 23 24 25

26 6 Notice of Suppl. Authority [ECF No. 38 in the Adirondack Case and ECF 27 No. 39 in the New Jersey Manufacturers Case]. 1 2. These two actions aae REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5|| Dated:__ September 16, 2024 6 ON ED! STATES DISTRICT JUDGE & 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28