Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02057/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02057-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD RAY FARMER and TRUNETTE

FARMER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2057 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

REMAND

This action was originally filed in California Superior Court,

San Francisco County. It was removed to this Court on April 12,

2007. Plaintiffs Donald Ray Farmer and Trunette Farmer move to

remand the case. Defendants Sulzer Pumps and Leslie Controls

oppose the motion. The matter was submitted on the papers. Having

considered the parties' papers, the Court grants Plaintiffs'

motion.

BACKGROUND

Donald Ray Farmer is a 67-year-old man who suffers from an

asbestos-related cancer and is not expected to live longer than a

few months. He sued sixty-seven defendants in San Francisco County

Case 4:07-cv-02057-CW Document 38 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Superior Court for negligence and strict liability resulting in his

asbestos-related cancer. His wife, Trunette Farmer, sued

Defendants in the same action for loss of consortium. Because of

his impending death, the court granted him a trial preference. 

On March 19, 2007, when the case was assigned to a trial

department, nineteen defendants remained in the case, including

Defendants Sulzer Pumps and Leslie Controls and Defendant Bechtel

Corp., which has headquarters in San Francisco. Defendant Bechtel

Corp. filed a motion in limine for non-suit, which the court

granted on April 5, 2007. On April 12, 2007, just before the third

and final panel of potential jurors entered the courtroom,

Defendant Sulzer Pumps served Plaintiffs' counsel with a notice of

removal. According to Defendant Sulzer Pumps, there is diversity

subject matter jurisdiction because Defendant Bechtel Corp. was

dismissed from the action.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to

federal district court so long as the district court could have

exercised original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). On a motion to remand, the scope of the removal statute

must be strictly construed. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

(9th Cir. 1992). "The 'strong presumption' against removal

jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of

establishing that removal is proper." Id. Courts should resolve

doubts as to removability in favor of remanding the case to state

court. Id.

Case 4:07-cv-02057-CW Document 38 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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 3

Defendant Sulzer does not meet its burden; it fails to

establish that removal is proper. 

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Docket No. 14) is

GRANTED and this case is remanded to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/2/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02057-CW Document 38 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 3