Eduardo Cecena v. Allstate Insurance Company

Plaintiff/Appellants Eduardo and Maria Cecena appeal various of the district court’s rulings in this case. We affirm.

I. Jurisdiction

Ordinarily, “[fjederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). There is now some authority in California case law holding insurance agents liable for common law fraud or negligent misrepresentation. See McNeill v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 116 Cal.App.4th 597, 603 , 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 (Cal.Ct.App.2004). The district court therefore erred by holding that the Cecenas fraudulently joined Michael Romero in the First Amended Complaint, which alleged com mon law fraud and negligent misrepresentation and was filed in state court before removal.

We nevertheless decline to order remand. “[A] district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperly removed is not fatal to the ensuing adjudication if federal jurisdictional requirements are met at the time judgment is entered.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 64 , 117 S.Ct. 467 , 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996). There was unquestionably complete diversity when judgment was entered in this…