Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00157/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANNETTE PIERCE, an indiviual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-cv-157-H (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND

[Doc. No. 8.]

vs.

KAISER FOUNDATION

HOSPITALS, a corporation; THE

PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP;

a corporation; and DOES 1 through

20,

Defendants.

On January 23, 2014, Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”)

removed this action from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. (Doc.

No. 1.) On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff Nannette Pierce (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to

remand the action to state court. (Doc. No. 8.) On February 26, 2014, Defendant The

Permanente Medical Group (“TPMG”) filed a notice of joinder to Kaiser’s notice of

removal. (Doc. No. 9.) On March 10, 2014, Defendants Kaiser and TPMG filed an

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Doc. No. 14.) On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff

filed her reply. (Doc. No. 15.) On March 19, 2014, the Court, pursuant to its discretion

under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), submitted the motion on the parties papers. (Doc. No. 16.)

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

- 1 - 14cv157

Case 3:14-cv-00157-H-BGS Document 16 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Background

Plaintiff had been employed as hospice nurse by Defendants. (Doc. No. 1-2,

“Compl.” ¶¶ 6-9.) Subsequently, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

(Compl. ¶¶ 10-32.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants discriminated against

her, in violation of state law, when they terminated her employment. (Compl. ¶¶ 33-

66.) 

On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed her complaint in the Superior Court of

California, County of San Diego (“California state court”) against Defendants. (Compl.

at 2.) On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff effected service of process on Defendant Kaiser.

(Doc. No. 1-3.) On January 12, 2014, Plaintiff effected service of process on Defendant

TPMG. (Doc. No. 8-2 at 4-6.) 

On January 23, 2014, Defendant Kaiser filed a notice of removal from the

California state court, claiming that the Court has federal question jurisdiction under

the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)

In its notice ofremoval, Defendant Kaiser stated that it was “informed and believesthat

no other defendants have been served with the Summons and Complaint(s) in this

action.” (Doc. No. 1 at 4.)

On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to

California state court on the grounds that Defendant Kaiser failed to comply with the

procedural requirements of the removal statute. (Doc. No. 8.) On February 26, 2014,

Defendant TPMG filed a notice of joinder to Defendant Kaiser’s notice of removal.

(Doc. No. 9.)

///

///

///

///

///

///

- 2 - 14cv157

Case 3:14-cv-00157-H-BGS Document 16 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Discussion

I. Legal Standard for Remand

Only cases that would have had original jurisdiction in a federal district court

may be removed fromstate court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “When a civil action isremoved

solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served

must join in or consent to the removal of the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A).

A defendant must remove a case within thirty days of when it is served, if the

initial pleading makes clear that the case is removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B);

Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 692 (9th Cir. 2005). The burden of

establishing removal jurisdiction is on the proponent of federal jurisdiction.

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).

When fewer than all defendants join the notice of removal, the burden is on the

removing defendant to explain the absence of the other served defendants. Prize Frize,

Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999), overruled on other

grounds by Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2006);

see also Lopez v. BNSF Ry. Co., 614 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1087 (E.D. Cal. 2007). “If the

removing party seeks to cure a defect in the removal petition after the thirty day period

has elapsed . . . the court has discretion to prohibit such an amendment.” Bicek v. C &

S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-00411-MCE, 2013 WL 4009239, at *3

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2013) (quoting Hemphill v. Transfresh Corp., Case No. C-9-0899-

VRW, 1998 WL 320840, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 1998)).

///

///

///

///

///

///

- 3 - 14cv157

Case 3:14-cv-00157-H-BGS Document 16 Filed 03/19/14 Page 3 of 4
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

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand

Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to comply with the procedural

requirements of the removal statute by failing to obtain the consent of co-Defendant

TPMG to the removal within the thirty day time period provided by 28 U.S.C. §

1446(b). (Doc. No. 8-1 at 3-6.) Defendants admit that TPMG’s joinder to the notice 1

of removal was tardy, in that TPMG filed its notice of joinder forty-five days after

Plaintiff effected service on it. (Doc. No. 14 at 8.)

Defendants urge the Court to permit them to cure the defects in their removal by

amendment under 28 U.S.C. § 1653. (Doc. No. 14 at 8-9.) After reviewing the parties’

filings, the Court concludes that Defendants’ confusion as to how the properly served

summons and complaint were handled by Defendants’ own employees is not an

adequate justification for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the

statute.2

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to remand the

action back to California state court. Because Defendants belief that the defects in the

removal could be cured via amendment was objectively reasonable, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s request for an award of fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: March 19, 2014

_______________________________

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff also points out that Defendant Kaiser cited to the wrong subsection of 1

28 U.S.C. § 1441 in its notice of removal. (Doc. No. 8-1 at 3.) Defendant Kaiser admits

to mistakenly citing the wrong statutory subsection. (Doc. No. 14 at 6.) Defendant

Kaiser’s citation error is not dispositive of the Court’s analysis of the motion to

remand. 

Furthermore, the Court is not adequately convinced by Defendants’ argument

2

that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a),

establishesfederal question jurisdiction. Cf. Burnside v. Kiewit PacificCorp., 491 F.3d

1053, 1059-60 (2007).

- 4 - 14cv157

Case 3:14-cv-00157-H-BGS Document 16 Filed 03/19/14 Page 4 of 4