Stoddart

Stoddart v. Allstate Insurance

Good Law
70 F. App'x 453
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 9, 2003No. 02-56214; D.C. No. 01-07266 RSWL (JWJx)California447 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Scott and Joy Stoddart (“Stoddart”) appeal the district court’s orders denying their motion to remand and granting Defendant-Appellee Allstate Insurance Company’s (“Allstate”) motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Delta Savs. Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017 , 1021 (9th Cir.2001). cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1082 , 122 S.Ct. 816 , 151 L.Ed.2d 700 (2002), and the district court’s denial of a motion to remand a removed case, see Oregon Bureau of Labor v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., 288 F.3d 414, 417 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

I.

The district court had jurisdiction both at the time of removal and when it entered judgment in the case. Allstate timely removed the case upon notice that the amount in controversy met the jurisdictional requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). The individual, non-diverse defendants named in the complaint were fraudulently joined and did not defeat diversity. See Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir.1998). Therefore, Stoddart’s motion to remand was properly denied.

II.

This…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.