Rebecca Stevenson v. Apyx Medical Corporation

discussion as to whether the forum defendant rule acts as a procedural bar to removal, U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), and as to whether the removing defendants sufficiently invoked the Court’s federal-question jurisdiction in its notice of removal, (see Notice of Removal ¶ 4 n.1, ECF No. 1). Cf. Lopez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. SACV 16-1409 AG (KESx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144380, at *5–6 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016) (“Making two sides talk can significantly help focus and clarify disputes, even when one side still has to file a motion at the end of the day.”).

The motion is denied without prejudice to renewal. If Plaintiff elects to refile her motion and a prefiling conference has not yet taken place, in the interest of justice, the Court authorizes Plaintiff to forego the seven-day waiting period prescribed by Local Rule 7-3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Contrary to the implications of the motion, (see Mot. 3), the forum defendant rule is a procedural, not jurisdictional, consideration, Lively v. Wild Oats Mkts., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the 30-day deadline to move to remand applies. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Although the issue appears…