Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc.

Prize Frize, Inc., William Bartfield and Larry Wirth (collectively “Prize Frize”) contend their state complaint was improperly removed. We agree, and reverse the district court.

I

Because a full recitation of the procedural history of this case might task even the most avid devotees of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, 2 we shall recount only that which is necessary to illuminate our rationale. Thus, we will not chronicle this litigation’s first pilgrimage through the state court system in the 1980’s, nor provide an account of its digression as an adversary proceeding in United States Bankruptcy Court in the early part of this decade, nor linger over the post-bankruptcy state foreclosure action. For our purposes, we begin with Prize Frize’s first amended complaint filed in California Superior Court in June of 1996, which augmented Prize Frize’s previously filed state law causes of action 3 with a new federal claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1994), commonly known as RICO. Certain of the defendants (Matrix, Fisher and Trent) appeared and demurred. In November 1996, their demurrer was sustained with leave to amend as to…