Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02487/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02487-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey E. Busch
Cross Claimant
Encompass Insurance Company
Cross Defendant
Glens Falls Insurance Company
Cross Defendant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

NO. CIV. S-05-2487 FCD 

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

JEFFREY E. BUSCH and DOES ONE

through TEN, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

JEFFREY E. BUSCH,

Cross-Complainant,

v.

THE GLENS FALLS INSURANCE 

COMPANY, ENCOMPASS INSURANCE 

COMPANY (formerly known as 

“CNA”), and ROES ONE through 

TWENTY, inclusive,

Cross-Defendants.

----oo0oo----

The court has reviewed cross-defendants’ notice of removal

to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) based on diversity

Case 2:05-cv-02487-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 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

Counter-defendants assert that their notice of removal 1

is based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). However, this section applies

only to federal question jurisdiction or to actions brought where

none of the parties are citizens of the State in which the action

is brought. Id. Counter-defendants base their notice of removal

upon diversity jurisdiction, and therefore, the court interprets

their notice as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which allows

removal by the defendant or defendants on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. 

2

jurisdiction. Section 1441(a) provides that “any civil action 1

brought in a State court of which the district courts of the

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United

States for the district and division embracing the place where

such action is pending.” Id. (emphasis added). The removal

statute is to be strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 

Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the

right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit has not

addressed whether “third-party” defendants or cross-defendants

are “defendants” for the purposes of § 1441(a). However, “the

majority view is that the determination of who is a defendant is

determined by the original complaint, not subsequent third or

fourth party complaints.” Schmidt v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners

of Marco Polo Condominium, 780 F. Supp. 699, 702 (D. Haw. 1991). 

The great weight of district court authority within this circuit

indicates that third party defendants lack a right to remove

actions to federal court under § 1441(a). See Ciolano v. Ryan,

2003 WL 21556959, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 09, 2003) (collecting

cases). Therefore, the court finds that the cross-defendants do

Case 2:05-cv-02487-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 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

not have a right to remove the case to federal court. 

Accordingly, the court REMANDS this action back to the Superior

Court of California, County of Placer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 14, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02487-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3