Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03929/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03929-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDAR BRIDGE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NIEHAUS RYAN WONG, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-3929 MMC

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

The above-titled action was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006 on the basis

of diversity jurisdiction. On June 27, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why

the action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, the

Court noted therein that defendants had failed to adequately allege diversity of citizenship

because defendants did not allege the citizenship of each of the limited partners of plaintiff

Olive Grove Partners II, Ltd. (“Olive Grove”).

On July 14, 2006, defendants filed a response to the order to show cause. On

July 27, 2006, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’ filing and, on July 28, 2006, a

supplement to their response. Both parties, in their responses, agree that diversity

jurisdiction exists in the instant case because all of the partners of Olive Grove are citizens

of Texas.

Plaintiffs contend, however, that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), defendants had

Case 3:06-cv-03929-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 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

1

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), an action not based on federal law, such as the

instant action, is “removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and

served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” See 28

U.S.C. § 1441(b).

2

no right to remove the instant action to federal court because all defendants are citizens of

California.1

 Plaintiffs state they “nevertheless would be pleased if Judge Chesney retained

this case.” (See Plaintiffs’ Response at 2.)

As plaintiffs point out in their supplemental response, the Ninth Circuit has recently

held that the “forum defendant rule embodied in § 1441(b) is a procedural requirement, and

thus a violation of th[e] rule constitutes a waivable non-jurisdictional defect subject to the

30-day limit imposed by § 1447(c).” See Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 2006 WL

2074734 at *7 (9th Cir. July 27, 2006). Where the forum defendant rule is violated, “the

plaintiff can either move to remand the case to state court within the 30-day limit, or allow

the case to remain in federal court by doing nothing.” See id. at *5. Here, the instant

action was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006, more than thirty days ago, and

plaintiffs have not moved to remand the action, but, rather, have affirmatively stated they

wish to remain in federal court. Accordingly, the Court finds plaintiffs have waived

defendants’ violation of § 1441(b).

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby VACATES its June 27, 2006 order

to show cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03929-MMC Document 11 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2