Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02873/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02873-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

Docket No. 16.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT HOGGE AND PRISCILLA HOGGE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

A W CHESTERTON COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C07-02873 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO REMAND

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Everett Hogge and Priscilla Hogge (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to

Remand.1

 Defendant John Crane Inc. (“Defendant”) opposes the motion. The Court having

considered the parties’ arguments and upon good cause shown GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant in a civil action may remove a case from state

court to federal district court if the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The

district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if there is diversity of citizenship between

the parties or if the action is founded on a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity jurisdiction); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Section 1441(b) further provides that if the basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship,

removal is available only if no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. As the party seeking to

Case 3:07-cv-02873-MJJ Document 30 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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

remove the action, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction

exists. Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1393. Because the Court strictly construes the removal statute against

removal, if there is any doubt as to the existence of federal jurisdiction, the Court should remand the

matter to state court. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Because the record before the Court does not establish that binding settlement agreements

have eliminated all non-diverse Defendants from the state court action, complete diversity did not

exist as of the time of removal. Accordingly, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. For

the foregoing reason, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02873-MJJ Document 30 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2