Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05553/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05553-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05549-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO REMAND

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION & 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIENTRA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

ANGELO ALBANO, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIENTRA, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

HOWARD KLEIMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIENTRA, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-05549-EJD 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTIONS TO REMAND

 Case No. 5:15-cv-05550-EJD 

 Case No. 5:15-cv-05553-EJD 

In Young v. Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-05668-EJD, 2012 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 33695, 2012 WL 851509 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012), this court held that purported 

class actions asserting only violations §§ 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 77a et. seq. (the “1933 Act”), may not be removed from state court for two principal 

reasons. First, after looking to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kircher v. Putnam 

Case 5:15-cv-05553-EJD Document 35 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-05549-EJD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO REMAND

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

Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (2006), the court concluded that actions for violations of the 1933 Act 

are not “covered class actions” under 15 U.S.C. § 77p(b) and are therefore not rendered removable 

by 15 U.S.C. § 77p(c). Second, the court found based on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Luther v. 

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008), that such actions are in 

fact prohibited from removal under 15 U.S.C. § 77v. 

Citing to Young and the several subsequent opinions from this district that agree with it,

each of the plaintiffs move to remand their respective actions for violations of the 1933 Act to San 

Mateo County Superior Court. Defendants oppose, but provide no persuasive basis for this court 

to revisit its decision from Young. 

Accordingly, the court finds that the cases captioned above “are not the type of covered 

class actions capable of being removed pursuant to § 77p, and indeed are prohibited from removal 

pursuant to § 77v.” Young, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33695, at *11. As a consequence, Defendants 

have not satisfied their burden to convincingly establish federal jurisdiction. See 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.”); see also

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

regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”). 

Plaintiffs’ motions to remand are therefore GRANTED, and the hearing scheduled for May 

26, 2016, is VACATED. The Clerk shall remand these cases to San Mateo County Superior Court 

and close the files. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05553-EJD Document 35 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2