Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01539/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01539-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Crystal J. Rezzonico, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Federal Signal Corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1539-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs’ motion for remand (doc. 21), defendant TriMark

Corporation’s response (doc. 23), defendant Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.’s (“IMMI”)

response (doc. 24), defendants Federal Signal Corporation and E-One, Inc.’s joinder in the

responses (doc. 25), and plaintiffs’ reply (doc. 27).

This case arises out of a collision between a fire truck driven by plaintiff Crystal

Rezzonico and defendant Jessica Varela. Rezzonico was ejected from the fire truck as a

result of the collision and was severely injured. She claims that failures of the restraint

system and door latch mechanism caused her to be ejected. She and members of her family

filed this action in state court in August 2010, against Varela, an Arizona citizen, as well as

manufacturers of the fire truck. Varela was served with the complaint on February 15, 2001,

but has failed to respond. 

Defendants removed this case on August 5, 2011, and plaintiffs now move to remand.

Case 2:11-cv-01539-FJM Document 30 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a district court has original jurisdiction over civil actions between

citizens of different states, where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. An action

brought in state court may be removed by the defendant to federal district court if the case

could have been brought there originally. Id. § 1441. If it appears that the federal court lacks

jurisdiction, the case must be remanded. Id. § 1447(c). Plaintiffs now argue that removal

is not proper because defendant Jessica Varela is an Arizona resident. 

The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and

the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Emrich v. Touche Ross

& Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). In their notice of removal, defendants

acknowledge that Varela is an Arizona resident who has been properly served. Defendants

do not contend that Varela’s joinder was fraudulent. Instead, they argue that plaintiffs have

acted affirmatively to dismiss their claims against Varela because (1) they have not taken her

default within 5 months of service of the complaint, (2) they have not served her with various

pleadings, and (3) they did not include her in the state court scheduling conference. 

First, the removal notice is facially deficient because defendant Varela was properly

served, but has not consented to the removal. Generally, all properly served defendants must

join in the petition for removal except for nominal, unknown or fraudulently joined parties.

Id., at 1193 n.1; Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2011). Because Varela has

not consented to the removal, the removal is defective. We grant plaintiffs’ motion to

remand on this basis. 

We also conclude that because Varela is an Arizona citizen, removal is improper

because there is no diversity. Defendants have not satisfied their burden of showing that

plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed or abandoned their claims against Varela. No dismissal

has been filed nor have the pleadings been amended so as to alter Varela’s status as a party

defendant. To be sure, the exclusion of Varela from participating in the state court

proceedings is either suspicious or sloppy, but plaintiffs now contend that they will prosecute

their claims against Varela. Therefore, based on lack of diversity, we conclude that removal

is not proper. 

Case 2:11-cv-01539-FJM Document 30 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiffs’ motion for remand (doc. 21). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED REMANDING this case to the Superior Court of

Arizona in Maricopa County.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01539-FJM Document 30 Filed 10/04/11 Page 3 of 3