Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00655/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00655-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

19cv655-L-LL

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

CANDICE MARKOWITZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, 

INC. ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv655-L-LL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., CooperSurgical, Inc. and The Cooper 

Companies, Inc. removed this personal injury action from State court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. The action was remanded for failure to sufficiently allege 

diversity jurisdiction based on fraudulent joinder. (See doc. no. 6.) Pending before the 

Court is Defendants' motion for leave to amend notice of removal to allege additional 

facts in support of fraudulent joinder. (Doc. no. 7.) Plaintiff filed an opposition and 

Defendants replied.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Defendants' motion is granted. See Willingham v. 

Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 n.3 (1969); Cohn v. Petsmart, 281 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (9th Cir. 

2002); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 

1987). Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Empire of Am.), 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988), 

Case 3:19-cv-00655-L-LL Document 12 Filed 11/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv655-L-LL

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

upon which Plaintiff relies, is distinguishable, because it addresses successive notices of 

removal rather than amendment under 28 U.S.C. §1653 to amend defective allegations of 

jurisdiction.

Accordingly, no later than December 6, 2019, Defendants shall file their amended 

notice of removal, if any. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the sufficiency of 

the proposed amended notice of removal filed with Defendants' motion. (Doc. no. 7 at 

11.)1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2019

 

1 Page numbers are assigned by the Electronic Case Filing System.

Case 3:19-cv-00655-L-LL Document 12 Filed 11/27/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2