Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:492

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK 11 JOSEPH ANDERS, an individual,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND ACTION TO

13 v.

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT

14 [ECF NO. 15] HOHM TECH, INC., a California 15 Corporation; and DOES 1-100 inclusive,

16 Defendants.

17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Anders’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand this 20 action to California Superior Court. (ECF No. 15 (“Motion”)). This matter was originally 21 set for hearing on August 15, 2022. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the 22 relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court finds pursuant to Local Rule 7.15 that 23 the matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument. The Motion has been taken 24 under submission, and, for the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 A. Factual Background 27 Plaintiff, a resident of North Carolina, alleges that the lithium-ion battery used to 28 power his electronic cigarette spontaneously exploded in his pocket, causing second-

-1- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:493

1 degree burns across his left leg. (ECF No. 1-4 at 3 ¶ 1). The battery at-issue was wrapped 2 in a “Hohm Tech” exterior coating. (ECF No. 15 at 26 ¶ 3). From this, Plaintiff concluded 3 that Hohm Tech, Inc. (“Hohm Tech”), a California corporation, was the manufacturer 4 responsible for the allegedly defective battery. See (id.); (ECF No. 1-4 ¶ 1). 5 On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the California Superior Court 6 for the County of San Bernardino asserting claims of Strict Products Liability and 7 Negligent Products Liability against Hohm Tech and Does 1-100. (ECF No. 1-4 at 2-4). 8 However, on July 30, 2021, Hohm Tech filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States 9 Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Riverside Division (the 10 “Bankruptcy Court”). See In re HOHM Tech, Inc., 6:21-bk-14150-MH (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) 11 (the “Bankruptcy Proceeding”). Plaintiff was thereafter served with a Notice of Stay for 12 these state court proceedings on August 3, 2021. (ECF No. 15 at 26 ¶ 2.b). 13 Before the issuance of the Bankruptcy Court’s Stay, Plaintiff and Hohm Tech had 14 already engaged in considerable discovery. (Id. at 25 ¶ 2.a). By April 1, 2021, Plaintiff 15 had served 36 Requests for Production, 56 Special Interrogatories, and Formal 16 Interrogatories on Hohm Tech. (Id. at 25 ¶ 2.a.ii). Over the course of this discovery, 17 Plaintiff concluded that the allegedly defective battery was manufactured by a Korean 18 entity, Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”), rather than Hohm Tech. See (id. at 26 ¶ 3, 19 10 n.1). On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed DOE Amendments to the Complaint naming 20 Defendant as “DOE 1” and California corporation Samsung SDI America, Inc. (“Samsung 21 America”) as “DOE 2.” (ECF Nos. 1-11, 1-12). At the time, Plaintiff continued to name 22 Hohm Tech as a co-defendant in the action because he hoped to hold Hohm Tech jointly 23 and severally liable for his alleged harms. See (ECF No. 15 at 21 (“Hohm Tech remained 24 a valid defendant as a link ‘in the chain of production and marketing, from the original 25 manufacturer down through the distributor and wholesaler to the retailer; liability of all 26 such defendants is joint and several.’”) (quoting Kaminski v. W. MacArthur Co., 175 Cal. 27 App. 3d 445, 455-456 (1985))). 28

-2- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:494

1 B. Procedural History 2 1. Plaintiff Begins Negotiations with Defendant 3 On or about September 29, 2021, Samsung America’s counsel (who also serves as 4 Defendant’s counsel) approached Plaintiff regarding Samsung America’s dismissal from 5 the litigation. (ECF No. 19-1 at 2 ¶ 2). Samsung America explained to Plaintiff “that 6 [Samsung America] [was] not a proper defendant because it is not in the chain of 7 distribution for the 18650 lithium-ion battery at issue in this action.” (Id.). Although 8 Plaintiff harbored doubt about Samsung America’s status as a viable defendant, see (ECF 9 No. 15 at 28 ¶ 9 (“Nor is it clear what role, if any, Samsung America played in the 10 distribution of the exploding battery.”)), Plaintiff did not dismiss Samsung America from 11 the suit. 12 On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff served Samsung America with the Complaint and 13 Summons. (ECF No. 1-15). Defendant, however, insisted that it be served in compliance 14 with Hague Convention procedures due to its status as a Korean entity. (ECF No. 15 at 27, 15 ¶ 4). Because of the Hague Convention’s onerous requirements, Plaintiff proceeded to 16 negotiate with Defendant for alternative service procedures. See (id.). On October 11, 17 2021, Plaintiff offered to dismiss Samsung America from the suit if Defendant accepted 18 service and filed an Answer to the Complaint. See (ECF No. 19-1 at 5). Defendant rejected 19 this offer on October 13, 2022. (Id.). 20 2. Plaintiff Dismisses Hohm Tech and Samsung America From Suit 21 On October 28, 2021, Samsung America removed the action to the Bankruptcy Court 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027. (ECF No. 23 1-19). Soon thereafter, on November 4, 2021, Samsung America filed a Motion to Dismiss 24 for Failure to State a Claim, which included a Request for Judicial Notice of a decision in 25 another matter holding that Samsung America was not in the chain of production for the 26 lithium-ion batteries at-issue. (ECF No. 15 at 27 ¶ 5). According to Plaintiff, he did not 27 dismiss Samsung America at that time because “Samsung America did not include a 28

-3- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:495

1 declaration or other admissible evidence with its Motion, merely the decision from another 2 Court.” See (id.). 3 On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to the Bankruptcy Court 4 on equitable grounds under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(d) and 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1452(b). (Id. at 27, ¶ 6). The Bankruptcy Court entered an Order remanding the case to 6 state court on February 2, 2022. (ECF No. 1-23). 7 On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant brokered an agreement. (ECF No. 15 at 8 28 ¶ 9). Plaintiff agreed to dismiss Samsung America without prejudice in exchange for 9 Defendant’s willingness to relax the Hague Convention’s service rules. (Id.). Later that 10 month, Plaintiff also received notice from the Bankruptcy Court that Hohm Tech’s 11 bankruptcy case was closed “with no distribution to the creditors.” (Id. at 26 ¶ 2.e). 12 “Rather than attempt to ‘squeeze blood from a turnip,’ Plaintiff chose to focus efforts on 13 the entity that ultimately manufactured the exploding lithium-ion battery–[Defendant]” and 14 moved to dismiss Hohm Tech from the suit without prejudice on April 11, 2022. (Id. at 28 15 ¶ 8, 16). Finally, on May 13, 2022, and pursuant to its agreement with Defendant, Plaintiff 16 dismissed Samsung America from the present action. (Id. at 16). It is undisputed that 17 Plaintiff never served a single discovery request on Samsung America up to this point. See 18 (ECF No. 19 at 11). 19 3. Defendant Removes the Action to Federal Court 20 On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with its first round of state court 21 discovery. (ECF No. 15 at 26 ¶ 2.f). Before serving any responses, however, Defendant 22 removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California 23 on June 10, 2022. (ECF No. 1). This occurred nearly 19 months after Plaintiff’s Complaint 24 was originally filed against Hohm Tech in the San Bernadino Superior Court. 25 On July 8, 2022, Plaintiff moved to remand the action back to the San Bernardino 26 Superior Court. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff argues that remand is mandatory because 27 Defendant’s motion for removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). On July 25, 28 2022, Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, arguing that the bad faith

-4- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:496

1 exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) applies. See (ECF No. 19). On August 1, 2022, 2 Plaintiff filed a Reply. (ECF No. 20). 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power 5 authorized by the United States Constitution and statute. See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2. 6 Title 28, United States Code, Section 1332 confers original jurisdiction on federal district 7 courts over civil actions where there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in 8 controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. Complete diversity exists 9 where each named defendant is a citizen of a different state from each named plaintiff. See 10 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) 11 (citing Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996)). If a case initially lacking complete 12 diversity at the time it is filed in state court subsequently becomes removable due to a non- 13 diverse defendant being dismissed from the case, a defendant may remove the case to the 14 federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, a 15 civil action otherwise removable solely based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1332(a) “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served 17 as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1441(b)(2). 19 Section 1446(c)(1) establishes a limitation period on removal, providing a defendant 20 may not remove a civil action based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the 21 action has commenced.1 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). An exception exists to the one-year 22 limitation period, if the defendant shows “the plaintiff has acted in bad faith” to prevent 23 defendant from being able to remove the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c). Courts have applied 24

25 1 “Commencement” refers to when the action was initiated in state court, according to state procedures. Fong. v. Beehler, 624 F. App’x 536, 537 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bush v. 26 Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 5.3d 683, 688 (9th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotations omitted). Under 27 California law, an action is initiated when the complaint is filed. Cal. Civ. P. Code § 350. 28 Therefore, in California, a defendant has one year from the time the complaint is filed to remove the action to federal court absent a finding of bad faith conduct by the plaintiff.

-5- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:497

1 the bad faith exception to plaintiffs who join a defendant solely to prevent other defendants 2 from removing the civil action, and then dismiss the non-diverse defendant after the one- 3 year deadline has expired when the plaintiff could have kept the non-diverse defendant in 4 the suit. See, e.g., Heacock v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP, Case No. C16-0829-JCC, 2016 5 WL 4009849, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2016); Heller v. Am. States Ins. Co., Case No. 6 CV 15-9771 DMG (JPRx), 2016 WL 1170891, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016). However, 7 it is “well established that the plaintiff is master of her complaint and can plead to avoid 8 federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 9 2007) (internal quotations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. AT & T 10 Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013). Because “[courts] strictly construe 11 the removal statute against removal jurisdiction” and there is a “strong presumption” 12 against removal, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 13 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 14 (citation omitted); see also Herrington v Nature Conservatory, Case No. CV 21-240-GW- 15 GJSx, 2021 WL 942749, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021). “The removing party bears the 16 burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith . . . .” Id. (citation omitted). 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 Defendant does not dispute that it removed this civil action based on diversity 19 jurisdiction more than one year after Plaintiff commenced the suit in state court.2 20 However, Defendant argues that section 1446(c)’s exception from the one-year limitation 21 should apply because Plaintiff acted in bad faith in naming California corporations Hohm 22 Tech and Samsung America as defendants and dismissing them after the one-year 23 limitation deadline. See (ECF No. 19 at 5). 24 25

26 2 Plaintiff filed this action in the San Bernardino Superior Court on November 17, 2020. 27 (ECF No. 1-4). Consequently, Defendant had until approximately November 17, 2021, to 28 timely file for removal. Defendant instead removed this case on June 10, 2022, nearly seven months after the deadline. (ECF No. 1).

-6- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:498

1 A. The Bad Faith Exception 2 Although the Ninth Circuit has not set a standard for applying the bad faith 3 exception, “district courts within the Ninth Circuit have concluded that ‘defendants face a 4 high burden [when claiming] that a plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.’” 5 Anderson v. FCA US LLC, Case No. CV 21-3125 PSG (JPRx), 2021 WL 2822398, at *3 6 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2021) (quoting Kulova v. Allstate Ins. Co., 438 F.Supp.3d 1192, 1196 7 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 10, 2020)); see also Heller, 2016 WL 1170891, at *2 (equating the 8 standard to the “high threshold” the Ninth Circuit has set for the required showing of bad 9 faith in the context of sanctions); Heacock, 2016 WL 4009849, at *3 (“The presumption 10 against removal, coupled with Ninth Circuit precedent holding that bad faith in the 11 sanctions context is a high burden, leads the Court to conclude that defendants face a high 12 burden to demonstrate that a plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.”) (citation 13 omitted). 14 When assessing whether a plaintiff has acted in “bad faith” to prevent removal, 15 district courts generally consider the following factors: “(1) the timing of the naming and 16 dismissal of the non-diverse defendant, (2) the explanation given for dismissal, and 17 (3) whether the plaintiff actively litigated the case in ‘any capacity’ against the non-diverse 18 defendant” before dismissal. Anderson, 2021 WL 2822398, at *3 (quoting Kalfsbeek 19 Charter v. FCA US, LLC, 540 F. Supp. 3d 939, 943 (C.D. Cal. 2021)); see also Torres v. 20 Honeywell, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-10879-RGK-KS, 2021 WL 259439, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 21 Jan. 25, 2021) (citations omitted). A court’s assessment of bad faith “necessarily involves 22 looking into the plaintiff’s subjective intent, as the text of section 1446(c)(1) ‘strongly 23 suggest[s] intentionality and purpose.’” Kalfsbeek Charter, 540 F. Supp. 3d at 943 24 (quoting Aguayo v. AMCO Ins. Co, 59 F. Supp. 3d 1225, 1266 (D.N.M. Oct. 31, 2014)). 25 “Since it would be extraordinary for a party directly to admit a ‘bad faith’ intention, his 26 motive must of necessity be ascertained from circumstantial evidence.” Forth v. Diversey 27 Corp., No. 13-CV-808-A, 2013 WL 6096528 (W.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2013) (quoting Cont’l 28 Ins. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 495 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir. 1974)).

-7- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:499

1 B. Plaintiff’s Inclusion and Dismissal of Hohm Tech 2 Here, Plaintiff’s decision to include as defendants Hohm Tech and Samsung 3 America, two California corporations, in its state complaint initially precluded removal to 4 this Court. Although Plaintiff named Hohm Tech as a defendant at the onset of the civil 5 litigation and dismissed Hohm Tech approximately four months after the 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1446(c)(1) deadline, Defendant does not focus its argument on the timing of those events. 7 Instead, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s explanation for the dismissal demonstrates bad 8 faith. For this proposition, Defendant asserts:

9 Plaintiff claims that he dismissed Hohm Tech as a result of its bankruptcy 10 filing, but Hohm Tech filed for bankruptcy in July 2021–nine months prior to 11 its dismissal, and within the period for removal. The conflict between Plaintiff’s arguments and his actions demonstrates that his actual intent behind 12 naming California Defendants was to destroy diversity. 13 14 (ECF No. 19 at 10). 15 However, Plaintiff claims that he did not dismiss Hohm Tech based solely on its 16 Chapter 7 filing but, instead, dismissed Hohm Tech when it became clear that Plaintiff 17 could not financially collect a judgment from Hohm Tech. On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff 18 received notice from the Bankruptcy Court that Hohm Tech’s bankruptcy case was closed 19 “with no distribution to the creditors.” (ECF No. 15 at 26, ¶ 2.e). Less than two weeks 20 after receiving this notice, on April 11, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Hohm Tech from this suit. 21 In support of his Motion, Plaintiff explains:

22 Plaintiff ultimately felt that pursuing Hohm Tech was not a worthy pursuit 23 based on the bankruptcy and the apparent lack of any funds to satisfy a 24 judgment that might be rendered against it. Rather than attempt to ‘squeeze blood from a turnip,’ Plaintiff chose to focus efforts on the entity that 25 ultimately manufactured the exploding lithium-ion battery–Samsung SDI Co., 26 Ltd.

27 28

-8- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:500

1 (Id. at 28, ¶ 8 (emphasis added)). The Court finds Plaintiff’s explanation makes sense, 2 given that it would not be prudent to continue to litigate a case against a co-defendant with 3 no potential for financial remediation when another co-defendant is available and 4 purportedly has the means to pay. The Court thus concludes that Plaintiff did not engage 5 in bad faith by dismissing Hohm Tech from the suit after the removal deadline. 6 C. Plaintiff’s Inclusion and Dismissal of Samsung America 7 However, the Court finds that the timing of Samsung America’s addition to and 8 dismissal from the suit, coupled with Plaintiff’s contradictory explanations for maintaining 9 the suit against Samsung America, support a finding of bad faith. See Anderson, 2021 WL 10 2822398, at *4 (“When evaluating a plaintiff’s explanation, courts have found bad faith 11 where the Plaintiff offers inconsistent explanations for dismissal”) (citation omitted). 12 Plaintiff added Samsung America to the suit on September 8, 2021, approximately ten 13 months after filing the Complaint and two months before the section 1446(c)(1) deadline. 14 By that time, Plaintiff had conducted considerable discovery against Hohm Tech to 15 determine its liability and the identity of the manufacturer of the lithium-ion battery at 16 issue. That same month, Samsung America explained to Plaintiff that it did not belong in 17 the chain of distribution for the lithium-ion battery and thus, could not be held jointly and 18 severally liable for Plaintiff’s harms. Instead of dismissing the California corporation 19 outright at that time, Plaintiff offered to dismiss Samsung America only if Defendant 20 agreed to forego Hague Convention service of process procedures and Answer the 21 Complaint (as opposed to challenging the Complaint or service of process). 22 Less than a month later, on November 4, 2021 (approximately two weeks before the 23 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) deadline), Samsung America filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure 24 to state a claim against Plaintiff. In support of the motion, Samsung America requested 25 the Bankruptcy Court take judicial notice of a decision in another matter holding that 26 Samsung America was not in the chain of distribution of the lithium-ion batteries at-issue 27 and, therefore, could not be held jointly and severally liable. Plaintiff acknowledges that 28 he harbored doubts about Samsung America being a viable defendant in the action. E.g.,

-9- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:501

1 (ECF No. 15 at 28, ¶ 9) (“Nor is it clear what role, if any, Samsung America played in the 2 distribution of the exploding battery”)). Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not agree to dismiss 3 Samsung America in the action at that time purportedly because “Samsung America did 4 not include a declaration or other admissible evidence with its Motion to Dismiss, merely 5 the decision from another Court.” (Id. at 27, ¶ 5). Yet, Plaintiff simultaneously claims that 6 he ultimately concluded that Samsung America was not a viable defendant based on this 7 identical information in support of the Motion to Dismiss. See (id. at 28, ¶ 9) (“Plaintiff 8 ultimately came to the conclusion–after receiving and considering the evidence Samsung 9 America submitted in support of its prior, mooted Motion to Dismiss . . . – that it was not 10 a worthy pursuit to keep litigating.”). Then, in somewhat contradictory fashion, Plaintiff 11 asserts that he was willing to dismiss Samsung America from the suit without prejudice 12 only if Defendant would agree to accept service and forego the Hague Convention’s 13 required procedures. See (id.); see also (id. at 10 n.1).3 Plaintiff states:

14 The timing of dismissal is also readily explained. . . . Plaintiff dismissed 15 Samsung America only upon the agreement that the true manufacturer 16 (Samsung SDI) would appear without the need to finalize an expensive, lengthy service process or fight through innumerable pleading and 17 jurisdictional challenges (also completed in March 2022)). 18 19 (ECF No. 20 at 4-5 (citing ECF No. 15 at 18, 20, ¶¶ 2e, 8, 9)). 20 Although Plaintiff harbored doubts about Samsung America being a viable 21 defendant and asserted that Samsung America had failed to provide any admissible 22 discovery on that issue, Plaintiff did not issue a single discovery request against Samsung 23 America during the period Samsung America was named as a defendant. This lack of 24 active litigation lies in stark contrast to the combined 106 Requests for Production, 91 25 3 Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that such litigation tactics are typically used against Defendant. 26 See (id. at 27, ¶ 4) (“Unlike other cases Plaintiff’s counsel has litigated against Samsung 27 entities–where Samsung would accept service of process in exchange for striking punitive 28 damage claims or other relief–[Defendant] in this matter originally insisted on service through the Hague Convention.”).

-10- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:502

1 Special Interrogatories, and Formal Interrogatories Plaintiff issued against Hohm Tech and 2 Defendant. The Court finds, based on its consideration of the totality of the circumstances, 3 that Plaintiff’s failure to litigate towards Samsung America, coupled with Plaintiff’s 4 contradictory explanations for maintaining the suit against Samsung America, demonstrate 5 bad faith overcoming the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Forth, 6 2013 WL 6096528, at *3 (finding the plaintiff’s explanation that “more discovery was 7 required” to verify the defendant’s representations that it was not a proper defendant was 8 “inconsistent,” “implausible,” and “highly suggestive of bad faith” because the explanation 9 was “contradicted by the fact that the plaintiffs did not obtain any further discovery from” 10 the defendant before dismissing it). 11 Plaintiff cites Alvarez v. FCA US, LLC to argue that “the Court need not second- 12 guess Plaintiffs’ litigation strategy” when “any non-token amount of discovery entitles the 13 plaintiff to the presumption of good faith.” (ECF No. 20 at 5 (citing No. 2:22-cv-02539, 14 2022 WL 2188386, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2022)). The Court finds Alvarez to be 15 inapposite for several reasons. First, the plaintiff in Alvarez was named to the action at the 16 onset of litigation. 2022 WL 2188386, at *2. Here, Samsung America was amended into 17 the action approximately two months before the section 1446(c)(1) one-year deadline with 18 little explanation offered in its Motion why Samsung America was named to the suit in the 19 first place. Second, the Alvarez defendant was dismissed almost two years after the Section 20 1446(c)(1) deadline. Id. Samsung America, however, was dismissed approximately six 21 months after the deadline only after Defendant agreed to relax the Hague Convention’s 22 requirements.4 (ECF No. 15 at 20, ¶ 9). Third, the Alvarez plaintiff “actively litigated the 23 case against [the non-diverse defendant] by first, pursuing viable claims against [it], and 24 second, attempting to take discovery.” 2022 WL 2188386, at *3. In contrast, Plaintiff was 25 notified on multiple occasions that the viability of his claim against Samsung America was 26

27 4 Notably, the parties agreed to this dismissal on March 2, 2022, less than four months after 28 the deadline.

-11- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:503

1 questionable and yet never served a single discovery request onto Samsung America, 2 despite harboring doubts about its viability in the suit. 3 Finally, the plaintiff in Alvarez dismissed the non-diverse defendant because the 4 defendant had moved to compel arbitration, which is widely considered a valid reason for 5 dismissal. Id. at *2; see, e.g., id. at * 3 (citing Kalfsbeek, 540 F. Supp. 3d at 945; Anderson, 6 2021 WL 2822398, at *4). Conversely, gamesmanship, as is evidenced by Plaintiff’s 7 explanation for his conduct, has been found not to be a sufficient basis for dismissing a 8 non-diverse defendant past the section 1446(c)(1) deadline. To the contrary, district courts 9 have repeatedly held that such conduct demonstrates “bad faith.” See Heller, 2016 WL 10 1170891, at *2-3 (finding “bad faith” because plaintiff did not diligently engage in 11 discovery with the non-diverse defendant and offered contradictory explanations for this 12 delay); Ehrenreich v. Black, 994 F. Supp. 2d 284, 288 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“[E]ven before 13 amendment’s enactment, courts in this Circuit had granted equitable extensions of the one- 14 year removal period in cases where the plaintiff has engaged in strategic gamesmanship to 15 prevent a defendant’s removal from state court.”); Forth, 2013 WL 6096528, at *3 (finding 16 “bad faith” because plaintiff’s explanations for “their failure to earlier dismiss [non-diverse 17 defendant] from the action [were] inconstant and implausible.”); In re: Rezulin Products 18 Liab. Litig. (MDL No. 1348), No. 00-CV-2843 (LAK), 2003 WL 21355201, at *2 19 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2003) (finding bad faith where the timing of plaintiff’s dismissal of non- 20 diverse defendant “suggests strategic behavior was at play”); Kemp v. CTL Distribution, 21 Inc., Civil Action No. 09-1109-JJB-SCR., 2010 WL 2560447, *7 (M.D. La. May 6, 2010) 22 (unpublished opinion) (“the plaintiffs failed to offer any cogent explanation or factual basis 23 for . . . delaying seeking discovery from” the non-diverse defendants before dismissing 24 them), adopted by, 2010 WL 2560451 (M.D. La. June 24, 2010), aff’d, 2011 WL 3425592 25 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, the Court finds the totality of the circumstances are highly indicative 26 of strategic gamesmanship intended to prevent removal. 27 28

-12- Case 5:22-cv-00979-SPG-KK Document 24 Filed 08/19/22 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:504

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, because the Court finds Defendant has satisfied its burden of showing 3 that Plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, section 1446(c)(1)’s bad faith exception 4 to the one-year limitation period applies in this case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to 5 Remand is DENIED. 6 7 DATED: August 19, 2022

8 HON. SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-13-