Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05503/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05503-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS B. GAINES, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 07-5503 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO REMAND

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order remanding the above-entitled action to the Superior

Court of California, County of San Francisco, came on for hearing before this court on

January 16, 2008. Plaintiffs Diana L. Gaines and Gary D. Gaines, individually and as the

personal representatives of plaintiff Thomas B. Gaines, deceased, and the Estate of

Thomas B. Gaines appeared by their counsel Daniel Balaban. Defendants Johnson &

Johnson; McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of McNeil-PPC, Inc.; McKesson

Corporation; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appeared by their counsel Kenneth P. Conour. 

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant

legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion as follows

for the reasons stated at the hearing.

The complaint in this action was filed in San Francisco Superior Court on November

3, 2006. On October 29, 2007, defendants removed the case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)

and 1446, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendants claimed

Case 4:07-cv-05503-PJH Document 28 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that removability was established by an “other paper,” which they “received” on October 9,

2007, more than 30 days, but less than one year, after the case was filed. See 28 U.S.C. §

1446(b). This “other paper” was a declaration signed by an employee of one of the

defendants. Defendants asserted that it was only when they “received” this declaration that

they became aware that the case was removable.

The court finds that a declaration by one of defendants’ own employees does not

qualify as an “other paper” by which defendants could have first been put on notice that the

case was removable. This is particularly true under the facts of the present case – where,

as of the time of removal, the case had been pending for almost a year, defendants had

had ample time for investigation and discovery, and the facts stated in the declaration were

plainly within the constructive knowledge of defendants well before the notice of removal

was filed.

Accordingly, the court finds that the notice of removal was untimely, and the case

must therefore be REMANDED to the San Francisco Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05503-PJH Document 28 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2