Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00742/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00742-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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

Anna Laura Traslavina, surviving mother

of deceased minor L.V.T., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MDS Pharma Services Inc.; Tocagen, Inc.;

Scott Sharples, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0742-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court (doc. 6), defendants’

response (doc. 10), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 11).

Plaintiff filed this action in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County against

MDS Pharma Services, Inc. (“MDS”), a Nebraska corporation, Tocagen, Inc., a California

corporation, and Scott Sharples, an Arizona resident. The action was then removed to federal

court. Plaintiff contends that removal is not proper under the forum defendant rule in 28

U.S.C. § 1441(b) because Scott Sharples is an Arizona resident. 

Section 1441(b) provides that an 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.” Defendants concede that Scott Sharples is an Arizona resident, but argue that

because he was not served at the time MDS removed this action, removal is proper.

Case 2:11-cv-00742-FJM Document 12 Filed 05/27/11 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 -

Defendants point to the general principle that challenges to removal require an inquiry into

the circumstances at the time the notice of removal is filed. Spencer v. United States Dist.

Court, 393 F.3d 867, 871 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Plaintiff filed her complaint in state court on April 12, 2011. MDS filed its notice of

removal just two days later, on April 14, 2011, before any defendant had been served.

Defendant Sharples was served six days after plaintiff filed her complaint. 

The “properly joined and served” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) is widely

interpreted, not as an effort to expand removal jurisdiction, but as reflecting a Congressional

intent to prevent the fraudulent joinder of forum defendants in order to avoid removal.

Sullivan v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 575 F. Supp. 2d 640, 644 (D.N.J. 2008). Courts have

refused to apply § 1441(b) literally where doing so “would produce a result demonstrably at

odds with Congressional intent underpinning the forum defendant rule,” Ethington v. General

Elec. Co., 575 F. Supp. 2d 855, 864 (N.D. Ohio 2008), and instead would “promote[ ]

gamesmanship on the part of removing defendants.” Standing v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 2009

WL 842211, at *3 (C.D. Cal. March 26, 2009); see also Sullivan, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 645

(“Indeed, it is inconceivable that Congress, in adding the ‘properly joined and served’

language, intended to create an arbitrary means for a forum defendant to avoid the forum

defendant rule simply by filing a notice of removal before the plaintiff is able to effect

process.”). 

Here, MDS removed this action a mere two days after the complaint was filed. Thus,

plaintiffs did not have a meaningful opportunity to effectuate service before defendants filed

their notice of removal. Sharples was effectively served only 6 days after the complaint was

filed. It appears from the complaint that Sharples is integral to plaintiff’s claims and was not

joined solely for the purpose of defeating removal. Because “service is not the key factor in

determining diversity,” Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co., 591 F.2d 74, 78 (9th Cir. 1979), we

conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the purpose of § 1441(b) is not served

by ignoring the Arizona defendant. Therefore, we conclude that removal was improper under

§ 1441(b) and accordingly we remand this case to the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa

Case 2:11-cv-00742-FJM Document 12 Filed 05/27/11 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 -

County.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion to remand (doc. 6).

DATED this 26th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00742-FJM Document 12 Filed 05/27/11 Page 3 of 3