Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06760/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06760-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan Bowen
Defendant
Muir Wood Adolescent & Family Services
Defendant
Muir Wood Adolescent & Family Services, LLC
Defendant
Muir Wood, LLC
Defendant
Scott Sowle
Defendant
Jennifer Venezia
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER VENEZIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MUIR WOOD, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06760-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 13

Plaintiff Jennifer Venezia’s (“plaintiff”) motion for remand came on for hearing 

before this court on December 11, 2019. Plaintiff appeared through her counsel, Steven 

Kesten and Steven Sattler. Defendants Muir Wood Adolescent & Family Services, LLC 

(“defendant Muir Wood Adolescent LLC”), Muir Wood LLC (“defendant Muir Wood LLC”), 

Scott Sowle (“defendant Sowle”), and Bryan Bowen (“defendant Bowen”) (collectively, 

“defendants”) appeared through their counsel, Annie Lau. Having read the papers filed 

by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, 

and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand for the 

reasons provided below and at the hearing. Correspondingly, the court TERMINATES

without decision defendants’ respective motions to dismiss (Dkt. 7-10).

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 2019, plaintiff initiated this action against defendants in Marin 

County Superior County. Dkt. 1, Ex. A. (Compl.). In her complaint, plaintiff alleges 

various tort and employment-related claims arising out of defendants’ purportedly 

inducing her to leave Illinois for employment in Marin County and subsequent 

discrimination on the basis of her medical conditions. On October 25, 2019, shortly after 

Case 4:19-cv-06760-PJH Document 22 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 5
2

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

Northern District of California

this action’s removal on October 18, 2019, defendants filed four respective motions to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. 7-10. On November 8, 

2019, plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand. Dkt. 13. 

Defendants filed their notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Dkt. 1. In it, they assert various jurisdictional facts that are 

dispositive of the instant motion to remand. In particular, defendants offer testimonial 

evidence that defendant Muir Wood Adolescent LLC and defendant Muir Wood LLC are, 

and at the time of removal were, California limited liability companies with their principal 

places of business in Sonoma County. Dkt. 1-5 ¶¶ 3, 5. They further assert that

defendant Sowle and defendant Bowen are, and at the time of removal were, citizens of 

California. Dkt. 1-4 ¶ 3; Dkt. 1-3 ¶ 3. At oral argument, counsel for defendants did not 

dispute these assertions.

Since this action’s removal, plaintiff has filed a joint stipulation to continue the 

hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. 12), two combined oppositions in 

response to such motions (Dkt. 16 and Dkt. 17), and two filings in connection with the 

instant motion (Dkt. 13 and Dkt. 20).

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A federal district court has original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and is between citizens of different states. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 

where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States”). As a general matter, 

a defendant may remove an action to federal court if such court would have original 

jurisdiction over such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as otherwise expressly 

provided by Act of Congress, any civil action 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 

Case 4:19-cv-06760-PJH Document 22 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

embracing the place where such action is pending.”). 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2), however, provides that an action may not be 

removed solely on diversity grounds if any served defendant to such action is a citizen of 

the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (“A civil action otherwise removable solely on the 

basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of this title may not be removed if any of 

the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in 

which such action is brought.”); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Ca., 393 F.3d 

867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is thus clear that the presence of a local defendant at the 

time removal is sought bars removal.”) (citing Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)). The Ninth 

Circuit has remarked that this subsection, also known as “the forum defendant” rule, 

“reflects the belief that federal diversity jurisdiction is unnecessary because there is less 

reason to fear state court prejudice against the defendants if one or more of them is from 

the forum state.” Spencer, 393 F.3d at 870 citing Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction

§ 5.5, at 345 (4th ed. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has further remarked that “[t]he forum 

defendant rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) is only applicable at the time a notice of removal is 

filed.” Id. at 871.

A removing party’s failure to comply with Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) is a 

procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 

933, 939 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[Title 28 U.S.C.] §1441(b) confines removal on the basis of 

diversity jurisdiction to instances where no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. As 

explained below, we hold that this additional limitation on diversity-based removal 

jurisdiction is a procedural, or non-jurisdictional, rule.”). Given the procedural nature of 

such defect, a plaintiff may waive her ability to challenge it. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, 

Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 942 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We hold that the forum defendant rule embodied 

in § 1441(b) is a procedural requirement, and thus a violation of this rule constitutes a 

waivable non-jurisdictional defect subject to the 30–day time limit imposed by § 

1447(c).”).

Courts have acknowledged that a plaintiff may waive her ability to challenge a 

Case 4:19-cv-06760-PJH Document 22 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

procedural defect in removal when, following removal, a plaintiff participates in certain 

“affirmative conduct or unequivocal assent of a sort which would render it offensive to 

fundamental principles of fairness to remand.” Barahona v. Orkin, 2008 WL 4724054, at 

*3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008); Alarcon v. Shim Inc., 2007 WL 2701930, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 13, 2007) (“The type of post-removal conduct that has been held to constitute 

waiver of the right to remand is affirmative conduct or unequivocal assent of a sort which 

would render it offensive to fundamental principles of fairness to remand”). 

B. Analysis

Here, defendants removed this action from Marin County Superior Court in 

violation of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) because they are all citizens of the action’s forum 

state, California. Defendants do not dispute such violation. At oral argument, counsel for 

defendants characterized the removal as an oversight and acknowledged that there was 

no basis to remove the case. As a result, the court finds that defendants’ removal was 

procedurally improper in the first instance. 

Despite their conceded mistake, defendants contest that plaintiff waived her ability 

to challenge removal on grounds of her “affirmative” litigation conduct in this court. The 

court disagrees. Plaintiff’s post-removal conduct in this action—a joint stipulation to 

continue a hearing, oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the instant motion 

to remand—did not avail her to the benefits or strategic advantages necessary to support 

a finding of “unequivocal assent” that “would render it offensive to fundamental principles 

of fairness to remand.” Alarcon, 2007 WL 2701930, at *2. To the contrary, to protect her 

rights, plaintiff was required to file her oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss, 

which the court notes were filed within only a week of removal. Moreover, the court 

cannot find that plaintiff somehow assented to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction by 

virtue of filing the instant motion, which sought remand to state court. Lastly, the fact 

that plaintiff filed a stipulation with this court to continue a hearing by two weeks—which 

defendants mutually agreed to—is of no moment here. In short, the court finds that 

defendants improperly removed this action and plaintiff did not waive her right to 

Case 4:19-cv-06760-PJH Document 22 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

challenge such defect.

CONCLUSION

The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand and REMANDS this action to the 

Marin County Superior Court. The court further TERMINATES without decision 

defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. 7-10).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2019

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06760-PJH Document 22 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 5