Scott Kesterson v. Johnson and Johnson

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Scott Keterson’s and Katherine Keterson’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for remand. (Dkt. No. 32). Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. (Dkt. No. 37.) The Court found this matter suitable for decision without oral argument and took Plaintiffs’ motion under submission. (Dkt. No. 40.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ motion for remand is DENIED. Il. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on October 25, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1-5.) On April

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk CB

16, 2020, Defendants filed their Notice of Removal in this Court.1 (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants sought removal based on diversity of citizenship of the parties and the amount in controversy. (Id.)

Plaintiffs now move to remand this case on two grounds. First, Plaintiffs contend that all defendants who were properly named and served in their complaint have not consented to removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). Second, Plaintiffs contend that…