Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06503/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06503-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

DAX PIERSON,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6503 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

PATRICK SCOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion to remand came on for hearing before this court on January 17,

2007. Plaintiff appeared by his counsel Daniel Dell’Osso and Brian J. Malloy, and

defendant Ford Motor Company appeared by its counsel H. Grant Law and Amir M.

Nassihi. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion

as follows and for the reasons stated at the hearing.

“Commencement” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) “refers to when the action was initiated

in state court, according to state procedures.” Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683,

688 (9th Cir. 2005). The general rule in California is that a civil action is commenced by

filing a complaint with the court. Cal. Civ. P. Code §§ 350, 411.10. However, an amended

complaint that adds a new defendant generally does not relate back to the filing of the

original complaint. Hawkins v. Pacific Coast Bldg. Products, Inc., 124 Cal. App. 4th 1497,

1503 (2004). 

Case 4:06-cv-06503-PJH Document 39 Filed 01/17/07 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

The allowance of amendment and relation back “does not depend on whether the

parties are technically or substantially changed; rather, the inquiry is as to whether the

nature of the action is substantially changed.” Diliberti v. Stage Call Corp., 4 Cal. App. 4th

1468, 1470 (1992). Here, when plaintiff amended the complaint to add Ford as a

defendant, he added independent claims against a new defendant. Thus, under California

law, a new action “commenced” with the filing of the amended complaint. The case

became removable when plaintiff dismissed the California defendant or defendants on

October 10, 2006. Because less than one year had elapsed between the time of the filing

of the amended complaint (March 10, 2006) and the filing of the notice of removal (October

18, 2006), the removal was not untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06503-PJH Document 39 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2