Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02572/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02572-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY L. PYTEL, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNRUN INC, et al.,

Defendant. __________________________________

JOE BAKER, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNRUN INC, et al.,

Defendant. 

MICHAEL BROWN, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNRUN INC, et al.,

Defendant. _________________________________

GEORGE COHEN, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNRUN INC, et al.,

Defendant. _________________________________

No. C 16-2566-CRB

C 16-2568-CRB

C 16-02569-CRB

C 16-02570-CRB

C 16-02572-CRB

C 16-02573-CRB

ORDER REMANDING CASES

Case 3:16-cv-02572-CRB Document 29 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 3
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

 See Elec. Workers Local #357 Pension & Health & Wellness Trusts v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., No. 16-cv-00933-EMC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60086 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2016); Iron Workers

Mid-South Pension Fund v. TerraForm Global, Inc., No. 15-CV-6328-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

27753, at *17-*18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016); Buelow v. Alibaba Grp. Holding Ltd., No.

15-cv-05179-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7444, at *9-*10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) City of Warren

Police & Fire Ret. Sys. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 917 (N.D. Cal. 2015); Liu v.

Xoom Corp., No. 15-CV-00602-LHK, 2015 WL 3920074, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2015);

Plymouth Cty. Ret. Sys. v. Model N, Inc., No. 14-cv- 04516-WHO, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1104, at *7

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015); Kerley v. MobileIron Inc., No. 15-cv-04416-VC, Order Granting Motion to

Remand (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2015); Desmarais v. Johnson, No. C 13-03666 WHA, 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 153165, at *8-*9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013); Young v. Pac. Biosciences of Cal., Inc., No.

5:11-cv-05668, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33695, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012); Cervantes v.

Dickerson, No. 15-cv-3825-PJH, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143390, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2015);

Harper v. Smart Techs Inc., No. C 11-5232 SBA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191130, at *13 (N.D. Cal.

Sept. 28, 2012); Toth v. Envivo, Inc., No. C 12-5636 CW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151767, at *3 (N.D.

2

________________________________

GREG MANCY, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNRUN INC, et al.,

Defendant. _________________________________

JACKIE L. NUNEZ, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUNRUN INC, et al.,

Defendant.

 _ /

Defendants removed the six actions at issue here—all brought under the Securities

Act of 1933—from state court in May 2016. See Notices of Removal. The Court concludes

that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7–1(b)

and VACATES the hearing set for this matter.

Courts in this district have uniformly concluded and exhaustively explained that the

Securities Act prohibits removal of the specific claims at issue here.1

 See 15 U.S.C.A. § 77v.

Case 3:16-cv-02572-CRB Document 29 Filed 07/12/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Cal. Oct. 17, 2013).

3

After careful review of the parties’ submissions and the relevant authorities, the Court

concludes that Defendants have offered no new or convincing arguments indicating that

these cases granting remand—cases which “appear[] to be emerging as the dominant view

around the country”—were wrongly decided. See Clovis Oncology, Inc., 2016 WL 2592947,

at *7. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motions to Remand in each of these six actions. 

Plaintiffs also move for fees and costs, arguing that Defendants lacked an “objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal.” See Terraform Glob., Inc., 2016 WL 827374, at *5. 

Although courts in this district have “soundly rejected” Defendants’ position, see Liu, 2015

WL 3920074, at *3, the Court declines to conclude that Defendants lacked an “objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal,” see Terraform Glob., Inc., 2016 WL 827374, at *5. 

Plaintiffs’ motion for costs and expenses is DENIED. See id. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2016 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-02572-CRB Document 29 Filed 07/12/16 Page 3 of 3