Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00438/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00438-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

Case No.: 15-cv-00438-NC

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL TOURIGNY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00438 NC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 9

Before the Court is Tourigny’s motion to remand this action to state court. Because 

the Court agrees that the plain language and policy behind the local defendant rule bars 

Symantec from removing the case, the Court GRANTS Tourigny’s motion to remand.

In November 2014, plaintiff Paul Tourigny sued Symantec Corporation in 

California Superior Court for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair 

Employment and Housing Act. In January 2015, after Tourigny notified Symantec of an 

error in the initial service of process, Symantec removed the case to federal court on the 

basis of diversity jurisdiction. However, removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction is 

procedurally flawed when the defendant is “local,” meaning a citizen of the state in which 

it is sued. Symantec argues that removal is nonetheless proper because a local defendant is 

only barred from removing to federal court when it has been served. 

All parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. Nos. 6, 10. 

/

Case 5:15-cv-00438-NC Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-00438-NC 2

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

Northern District of California

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without 

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Removal of a state court action to federal court is appropriate only if the federal court 

would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 

A federal district court must remand a removed case to state court “[i]f at any time before 

the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. 

In deciding whether removal was proper, courts strictly construe the removal statute 

against finding jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing that removal was appropriate. Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer 

Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Where doubt exists 

regarding the right to remove an action, it should be resolved in favor of remand to state 

court. Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

II. DISCUSSION

Tourigny argues that remand is proper because (1) Symantec is barred from 

removing to federal court because it is a local defendant, and (2) in the alternative, 

Symantec was served prior to removal. Dkt. No. 9. The Court declines to reach 

Tourigny’s second argument, finding that the local defendant rule bars removal to this 

Court.

Generally, a defendant to an action in state court has 30 days from service of the 

complaint to remove a case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). In most cases, original 

federal subject matter jurisdiction may be premised on two grounds: (1) diversity 

jurisdiction, or (2) federal question jurisdiction. District courts have diversity jurisdiction 

over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action is between citizens of different 

states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A corporation is a citizen of the states in which it is incorporated 

and has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). 

Here, Symantec claims federal jurisdiction based on the diversity of the parties. 

Case 5:15-cv-00438-NC Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-00438-NC 3

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

Northern District of California

Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 7. Tourigny is a citizen of Massachusetts, and Symantec is a corporation, 

incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in California. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9. 

Symantec states, and Tourigny does not challenge, that the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000. Id. at ¶ 10-12. Additionally, Tourigny’s claims are all based on state law, and 

not federal law. Dkt. No. 1. Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the 

parties are properly diverse and the amount in controversy requirement has been met.

However, Congress created an exception for diversity jurisdiction when the 

defendant is “local,” or a citizen of the state in which he was sued. A local defendant 

cannot remove the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Specifically, this “local

defendant rule” provides that a case may not be removed once “any of the defendants are 

joined and served.” Id. The rule is a procedural limitation on removal, not a jurisdictional 

one; therefore, a plaintiff seeking remand of the case must make such a motion within 

thirty days of removal. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 

2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Here, Symantec is a local defendant, as a citizen of

California, and Tourigny timely filed a motion for removal. Dkt. No. 9. 

The question presented to the Court is whether a local defendant can remove a case 

to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction prior to service. Symantec argues that the 

local defendant rule only bars removal once a defendant has been served in state court. 

Dkt. No. 12 at 4. Reading the rule literally, Symantec argues, the statute only applies 

when all defendants are joined and served. Id. Symantec cites a number of district court 

cases in this district and others that have taken a literal approach to the text of the local 

defendant rule and find that a defendant can remove prior to service. Id. at 6. Tourigny 

argues that the same rule is intended to prevent local defendants from removing the case to 

federal court, regardless of whether they have been served. Dkt. No. 9 at 6. Tourigny 

points to the policy of protecting a plaintiff’s choice of forum, and the general policy 

discouraging removal of cases to federal court. Id. Tourigny also cites district court cases 

supporting his reading of the removal statute. Id. at 9-12. 

This Court is presented with a legal question which has yet to be decided by any 

Case 5:15-cv-00438-NC Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-00438-NC 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

circuit courts. District courts are divided in their interpretation of the local defendant rule.

1

 

Generally, the district courts either (1) read the rule literally and conclude that removal 

prior to service is proper, or (2) find that such literal reading creates an absurd result that 

conflicts with the statute’s purpose to bar local defendants from removal. Compare

Holstrom v. Harad, 2005 WL 1950672 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2001), with Frick v. Novartis 

Pharms. Corp., 2006 WL 454360 (D.N.J. Feb. 23, 2006). However, nearly all courts that 

examine the statute do so in the context of multiple defendants. See Allen v. 

Glaxosmithkline PLC, 2008 WL 2247067 at *5 (E.D. Penn. May 30, 2008). This Court 

finds that under either approach, the result is the same and requires remand. From both a 

literal reading and a policy-based approach, the Court concludes that the local defendant 

rule does not permit a single local defendant to remove to federal court in a diversity case. 

A. Plain Meaning

When interpreting a statute, courts begin with the plain meaning of the statute, 

construed “so as to give effect to the intent of Congress.” United States v. Am. Trucking 

Ass’ns, 310 U.S. 534, 542 (1940). The local defendant rule prohibits removal “if any of 

the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in 

which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). A plain reading of the language 

suggests that the “joined and served” language only applies to multiple defendants. 

This Court agrees with the reasoning of Judge Baylson, who approached similar 

facts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Allen, 2008 WL 2247067. Considering only 

the plain meaning, Judge Baylson concluded, “[b]ecause the operative phrase is ‘joined 

and served’ and not ‘named and served’ or simply ‘served,’ the statute contemplates a 

situation in which one defendant is joined to another defendant, presumably an in-state 

defendant joined to an out-of state defendant. The ‘joined and served’ language therefore 

 

1

For a thorough discussion of the varying district court interpretations of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), see Jordan Bailey, 

Giving State Courts the Ol' Slip: Should A Defendant Be Allowed to Remove an Otherwise Irremovable Case to 

Federal Court Solely Because Removal Was Made Before Any Defendant Is Served?, 42 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 181, 182 

(2009); Matthew Curry, Plaintiff’s Motion To Remand Denied: Arguing for Pre-Service Removal Under the Plain 

Language of the Forum-Defendant Rule, 58 Clev. St. L. Rev 907 (2010).

Case 5:15-cv-00438-NC Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-00438-NC 5

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

Northern District of California

can only apply where there are multiple, named defendants.” Id. at *5. Symantec urges 

the Court not to ignore the phrase “and served” in its interpretation of the rule. Dkt. No. 

12 at 4. The Court agrees and finds that the phrase should be read in its entirety, also 

giving significance to the preceding word “joined.” Plainly read, the local defendant rule’s 

“exception” for removal prior to service can only be considered when plaintiff sues 

multiple defendants. 

This interpretation of the rule does not contradict the cases in this district that 

conclude such an exception does exist. The cases cited by defendants and referred to by 

judges in this district all involve multiple defendants, often including several non-local 

defendants. Sherman v. Haynes & Boone, No. 14-cv-01064 PSG, 2014 WL 4211118, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014) (three defendants); Regal Stone Ltd. v. Longs Drugs Stores 

California LLC, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1124-1129 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (three defendants); 

Carreon v. Alza Corp., 09-cv-5623 RS, 2010 WL 539392 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2010)

(two defendants); City of Ann Arbor Employee’s Retirement Sys. v. Gecht, 06-cv-7453 

EMC, 2007 WL 760568 at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2007) (multiple defendants); Waldon v. 

Novartis Pharms. Corp., 07-cv-1988 MJJ, 2007 WL 1747128 at *1-3 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 

2007) (three defendants).

This case is factually distinct because Symantec is the sole defendant. 

B. Purpose of the Statute

In addition, finding that a local defendant is barred from removal regardless of 

service is consistent with the purpose of the removal statute. Some district courts have 

found that a literal reading of the local defendant rule produces absurd results, given the 

statute’s policy. See Swindell-Filiaggi v. CSX Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 514, 521 (E.D. Penn. 

2013). Here, reading the local defendant rule to bar removal of an action by a single local 

defendant does not produce an absurd result. 

Generally, “diversity jurisdiction is intended to protect out-of-state defendants from 

possible prejudices in state court.” Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 940 

(9th Cir. 2006). However, “[t]he need for such protection is absent . . . where the 

Case 5:15-cv-00438-NC Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 5 of 6
Case No.:15-cv-00438-NC 6

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

Northern District of California

defendant is a citizen of the state in which the case is brought.” Id. Absent a concern of 

prejudice to the defendant, federal courts should have “[d]ue regard for the rightful 

independence of state governments” to “provide for the determination of controversies in 

their courts.” Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941). 

Specifically, the local defendant rule’s “joined and served” exception exists to “prevent a 

plaintiff from blocking removal by joining as a defendant a resident party against whom it 

does not intend to proceed, and whom it does not even serve.” Stan Winston Creatures 

Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 2d 117, 181 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Swindell-Filiaggi, 

922 F. Supp. 2d at 518. 

Here, Tourigny, a Massachusetts citizen, has sued Symantec in the defendant’s 

home state. Because Symantec is local, there is no concern of prejudice against it in state 

court. Tourigny does not seek to join additional defendants to the action. The purpose of 

the local defendant rule is to prevent Symantec from removal, defeating Tourigny’s choice 

of forum. The Court does not agree with Symantec that it can avoid the local defendant 

rule by removing to federal court before being served. That reading of the statute is 

inconsistent with both the statute’s plain language and the policy of respecting state 

jurisdiction over state matters unless there is a risk of prejudice to the defendant. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The Court orders the case remanded 

back to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00438-NC Document 19 Filed 04/24/15 Page 6 of 6