Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01785-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

PROGRESSIVE WEST INSURANCE

COMPANY,

NO. CIV. S-06-1785 FCD/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SIMON H. PRECIADO,

Defendant.

__________________________/

SIMON H. PRECIADO,

Cross-Complainant,

v.

PROGRESSIVE WEST INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Cross-Defendant.

----oo0oo----

 This matter is before the court on defendant/crosscomplainant Simon Preciado’s (“Preciado”) motion to remand.1 By

Case 2:06-cv-01785-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 10/03/06 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

the motion, Preciado seeks an order of remand on the ground that

plaintiff/cross-defendant Progressive West Insurance Company

(“Progressive”) untimely removed the instant action on the basis

of Preciado’s amended cross-complaint as his original crosscomplaint was removable on the basis of diversity of citizenship. 

In opposition to the motion, Progressive contends it timely

removed the action because (1) Preciado’s claims in the original

cross-complaint did not meet the requisite $75,000 amount in

controversy threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction; and (2)

the amended cross-complaint alleged for the first time a class

action claim pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1453, thus providing independently, federal question

jurisdiction over the case. 

The court summarily GRANTS Preciado’s motion but for a

wholly different reason (not raised or discussed by either

party). As the plaintiff in the state court action, Progressive

cannot remove the instant action. The right of removal is vested

exclusively in defendants. “A plaintiff who has chosen to

commence an action in state court cannot later remove it to

federal court, even to defend against a counterclaim.” Abdullah

v. City of San Francisco, 1995 WL 225701 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 1995)

(emphasis added) (citing Southland Corp. v. Estridge, 456 F.

Supp. 1296, 1300 (C.D. Cal. 1978) [holding that a plaintiff could

not subsequently remove an action to federal court upon being

served with a class action counterclaim]). A plaintiff “who also

becomes a counterdefendant should not have . . . two chances to

pick the forum.” Southland Corp., 456 F. Supp. at 1301. 

Case 2:06-cv-01785-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 10/03/06 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

2 The rule was initially set forth by the United States

Supreme Court in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S.

100, 105-06 (1941) (interpreting former removal statute, 28

U.S.C. § 71).

3

Accordingly, based on this clearly established rule,2 Progressive

improvidently removed this action on the basis of Preciado’s

cross-complaint.

As such, the court orders the instant action REMANDED to the

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yolo. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: October 2, 2006

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01785-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3