1

JS-6

2 || CC: LASC- COUNTY OF VENTURA 3 4 5 6 7 g Anited States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 11 | SALVADOR MAGANA and LAURA Case Ne: 2:19-cv-00713-ODW (SSx) 1 MAGANA, 3 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. REMAND [27] 4 SANDVIK MINING AND 15 | CONSTRUCTION USA, LLC; 16 | UNITED SCREENING AND CRUSHING, INC.; EXTEC, INC.; and 17! DOES 5 through 100, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 30 I INTRODUCTION On May 11, 2017, Plaintiffs Salvador Magana and Laura Magana (“Plaintiffs”) filed this personal injury action in the Superior Court of California for the County of 73 Ventura. (Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) Prior to the current defendants appearing, Defendant Sandvik, Inc.,! (“Sandvik”) removed this matter 95 based on federal diversity jurisdiction. (See Notice of Removal {J 9, 13, 17, ECF 26 No. 1.) Plaintiffs move to remand. (Mot. to Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 27.) For the 27 28 A ' Not to be confused with Defendant Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC.

1 reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Magana’s Motion and REMANDS this 2 action to state court. 2 3 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff Salvador Magana worked as a laborer for Santa 5 Paula Materials, Inc. (“Santa Paula”). (Decl. of William M. Grewe (“Grewe Decl.”) 6 ¶ 2, ECF No. 27-1.) Plaintiff Laura Magana is the lawful spouse of Plaintiff Salvador 7 Magana. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 16, ECF No. 25.) Mr. Magana used an “S5 8 Screener” machine to process rocks and materials. (SAC ¶ 2.) The machine caught 9 his arm, pulled his arm into the machine, and severed his arm from his body. 10 (Mot. 2.) 11 On May 11, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Mr. Magana’s employer, 12 Santa Paula Materials, Inc., in the Superior Court of California for the County of 13 Ventura, asserting claims for negligence, strict product liability, failure to warn, 14 breach of warranty, and loss of consortium claims. (SAC.) Upon learning that Santa 15 Paula was not liable for the injury, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal. (Mot. 2) 16 On November 26, 2018, the Department of Occupational Safety and Health 17 informed Plaintiffs that Extec, Inc. (“Extec”) manufactured, distributed, packaged, 18 labeled, and warranted the subject S5 Screener. (SAC ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs believe that the 19 S5 Screener was manufactured by Extec sometime in 2006 and subsequently sold or 20 distributed to Santa Paula. (Mot. 3.) In 2007, a Sandvik entity acquired and merged 21 with Extec. (Mot. 3.) In 2009, Extec filed a Certification of Surrender of Right to 22 Transact Intrastate Business with the California Secretary of State. (Grewe Decl. ¶ 23 11, Ex. 9.) 24 On December 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in state 25 court adding a theory of successor liability. (Grewe Decl. ¶ 13.) On December 28, 26 2018, Plaintiffs filed a DOE Amendment naming Sandvik as Defendant DOE 1. 27

28 2 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 (Grewe Decl. ¶ 14.) On January 30, 2019, Sandvik, removed this matter to federal 2 court based on federal diversity jurisdiction because (1) Sandvik is a Delaware 3 corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey; (2) Plaintiffs are 4 citizens of California; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. (Mot. 6.) 5 In response to a Motion to Dismiss filed by Sandvik, Inc., the parties met and 6 conferred. (Grewe Decl. ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs learned Extec merged with Sandvik Mining 7 (“Sandvik Mining”) in 2009. (Mot. 8.) Additionally, Plaintiffs also learned that Santa 8 Paula obtained the S5 Screener from United Screening and Crushing, Inc. (“United 9 Screening”). (Id.) United Screening is a California corporation with its principal 10 place of business in California. (Id.) After informal discovery and discussion with 11 Sandvik’s attorney, Plaintiffs learned Sandvik was not a proper defendant and 12 dismissed Sandvik from the matter. (Id.) 13 On March 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint naming 14 Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC; United Screening and Crushing, Inc.; 15 and Extec, Inc. as Defendants. (Mot.) Plaintiffs now moves to remand on the basis 16 that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. (Mot.) 17 III. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter 19 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See e.g., 20 U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1; Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 21 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the 22 federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 23 Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law, id. § 24 1331, or where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship 25 and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, id. § 1332(a). 26 Courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus 27 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Therefore, “federal 28 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 1 instance.” Id. This “strong presumption” against removal demands that a court 2 resolve all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court. Id. (quoting Nishimoto v. 3 Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see Matheson 4 v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Where doubt 5 regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”). 6 Remand may be ordered for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for “any 7 defect in removal procedure.” 28 U.S.C § 1447(c). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction 8 may be raised “at any time before final judgement.” 28 U.S.C § 1447(c). If at any 9 time before a final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 10 jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, the case shall be remanded. 28 11 U.S.C § 1447(c). 12 IV. DISCUSSION 13 The Court finds that it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction, and the matter 14 should be remanded to the Superior Court of Ventura. 15 The Supreme Court “ha[s] consistently interpreted § 1332 as requiring complete 16 diversity: In a case with multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, the presence in 17 the action of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single defendant deprives the 18 district court of original diversity jurisdiction over the entire action.” Exxon Mobil 19 Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 553 (2005). A person’s citizenship is 20 determined by her domicile, “where she resides with the intention to remain or to 21 which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th 22 Cir. 2001). A corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and principal 23 place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). 24 Plaintiffs originally filed this case in the Superior Court of California for the 25 County of Ventura. (See generally Compl.) Defendant Sandvik removed the case 26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Mot. 3.) The amount in controversy in the First 27 Amended Complaint exceeded $75,000. (First Am. Compl., ECF No 1-3.) Plaintiffs 28 are citizens of California, and Sandvik is a Delaware corporation with its principal 1 place of business in New Jersey. (Mot. 8.) At the time of removal, complete diversity 2 was satisfied, thus the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. On 3 March 25, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Sandvik from this action because Sandvik was 4 not a proper defendant. (Notice of Dismissal, ECF No. 22.) 5 After dismissing Sandvik, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint 6 (“SAC”), and named Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC; United Screening 7 and Crushing, Inc.; and Extec, Inc. as defendants. (SAC ¶¶ 1–4.) Sandvik Mining is a 8 limited liability company incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place 9 of business in Delaware. (Mot. 8.) In March of 2009, Sandvik Mining merged with 10 Extec. (SAC ¶ 1.) United Screening is incorporated in the state of California and 11 maintains its principal place of business in California. (SAC ¶ 2.) United Screening 12 was involved in the selling, leasing, distributing and/or delivering the S5 Screener that 13 caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Id.) Extec was incorporated in the State of Delaware and 14 maintains its principal place of business in California. (SAC ¶ 3.) Extec is the alleged 15 manufacturer of the S5 Screener that caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Id.) 16 Here, diversity jurisdiction is not satisfied, newly named Defendants United 17 Screening and Extec are corporations with their principal place of businesses in 18 California. (SAC 2.); see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) (a corporation is a citizen of both its 19 state of incorporation and principal place of business.) Consequently, diversity 20 jurisdiction is no longer met and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) are no 21 longer satisfied. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court REMANDS the action to the 3 || Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura, Case No. 56-2017- 4 || 00496365-CU-PL-VTA located at 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California 5 || 93009. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 August 29, 2019 fg bjigit

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28