Perry Prioette v. AbbVie Inc. ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:24-cv-00233-RGK-RAO Date January 16, 2024 Title Perry Prioette v. AbbVie Inc., et al. Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause re: Fraudulent Joinder On December 12, 2023, Perry Prioette (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Abbvie, Inc., Allergan, Inc., and Lilian Hom (“Defendants”) in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging state law tort and contract claims for personal injuries caused by a medical product sold by Defendants. On January 10, 2024, Abbvie, Inc. and Allergan, Inc. (collectively, “Removing Defendants”) removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, ef seg. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “‘the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Jn re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N_A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”). Removing Defendants do not dispute that Lilian Hom is a California citizen. Instead, they argue that she is a sham defendant, joined solely to defeat diversity, because she allegedly neither met Plaintiff nor provided him with the product causing his injuries. But these allegations directly contradict the Complaint. Removing Defendants have not established that removal is proper by a preponderance of the evidence, because they offer no evidence to support their allegations. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing, supported by evidence, as to whether Hom is fraudulently joined. Such a response shall not exceed five pages and must be submitted within seven days of this Order’s issuance. IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer REM