Manown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAURICE M. MANOWN, et al., Case No. 20-cv-07266-SI AND RELATED CASES 20-7267, 20- 8 Plaintiffs, 7268, 20-7270, 20-7271, 20-7272, 20-7274, 9 v. 20-7276, 20-7277, 20-7280, 20-7282, 20- 7283, 20-7287, 20-7291 10 SAFEWAY, INC., et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 11 Defendants. COMBINED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMAND CASES 12 TO STATE COURT 13 Re: Dkt. No. 24 14 On November 4, 2020, plaintiffs in these fourteen related cases filed a combined ex parte 15 application to remand the cases to state court. The Court previously granted a combined ex parte 16 application to remand six other related cases to state court on the ground that the removing entities 17 did not have the authority to remove the actions, see Dkt. No. 35 in 20-6947 SI. The removals in 18 the current group of fourteen cases are identical to the removals in the cases that have been 19 remanded; the same non-party entities removed these actions to federal court, asserting that they are 20 actually the Doe defendants. No opposition to the plaintiffs’ combined ex parte application to 21 remand has been filed.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the combined ex parte 22 application and REMANDS these cases to state court. 23 Plaintiffs contend that the removing entities did not have the authority to remove the actions. 24 The fourteen cases at issue were removed from state court by Boehringer Ingelheim 25 26 1 The Court’s clerk contacted defendants and the removing entities to inquire whether any 27 oppositions would be filed. The retailer defendants and the Sanofi entities informed the clerk that 1 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Pfizer Inc., 2 Sanofi US Services, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. These 3 entities are not named as defendants in the complaints, although the complaints do mention these 4 || entities in the factual allegations. The notices of removal filed by these entities state that the 5 “removing defendants” “were improperly and incorrectly named as Doe Defendants.” See e.g., Dkt. 6 || No. 1 in 20-7266. 7 “[I]n a case that has been removed from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 8 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the proponent of federal jurisdiction—typically the defendant 9 in the substantive dispute—has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 10 || removal is proper.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 11 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2010). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 12 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the 14 || district courts have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the 3 15 || district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 a 16 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). Here, the removing entities are not the named defendants. In 3 17 addition, because Doe pleading is restricted to unknown potential defendants, the removing entities 18 cannot be the Doe defendants. See McClatchy v. Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP, 247 19 || Cal. App.4th 368, 371 (2016) (“Section 474 allows a plaintiff who is ignorant of a defendant’s 20 || identity to designate the defendant in a complaint by a fictitious name (typically, as a ‘Doe’), and to 21 amend the pleading to state the defendant’s true name when the plaintiff subsequently discovers 22 || it’); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 474. As such, the Court concludes that removal was improper. 23 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the combined ex parte application and REMANDS these 24 || actions to the state courts from which they were removed. All other pending motions are DENIED 25 || AS MOOT. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Sate WU tee 27 Dated: November 12, 2020 SUSAN ILLSTON 28 United States District Judge