Case ID: f-appx_80/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John HEALY, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, and Electronic Data Systems Corporation, a foreign corporation; EDS/SHL, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants—Appellants. In re: Electronic Data Systems Corporation and EDS/SHL, Corporation, Petitioner, Electronic Data Systems Corporation and EDS/SHL Corporation, Petitioner, v. United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Respondent, John D. HEALY, Real Party in Interest.
    No. 02-16881, 02-73163.
    D.C. No. CV-02-01575-LKK, CV-02-1575-LKK.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 4, 2003.
    
    Decided Nov. 6, 2003.
    Anne Marie Flaherty, Flaherty & Serlin, Richard Edson, State Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alfred J. Landegger, Esq., Larry C. Baron, Landegger & Baron, Encino, CA, Kenneth Stark, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Larry C. Baron, Landegger & Baron, Encino, CA, Kenneth Stark, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner.
    Richard Edson, State Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Clifford E. Yin, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Real Party in Interest.
    
      Before CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

EDS brings this consolidated appeal and petition for writ of mandamus to challenge a sua sponte remand by the Eastern District of California. The underlying case involves breach of an employment separation agreement. In July 2002, EDS sought removal to federal court on diversity grounds. Upon finding that not all defendants had joined in the notice of removal as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the district court issued a sua sponte remand to Sacramento Superior Court.

Our recent opinion in Kelton Arms Condominium Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.2003), controls. Kelton Arms holds that under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) the district court lacks authority to make a sua sponte remand to state court based on a non-jurisdictional defect in removal. Slip op. at 15035. Failure of all defendants to join in the notice of removal is a procedural defect. Parrino v. FHP, 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.1998).

We therefore vacate the district court’s remand order and remand the case to district court for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.