N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LAR A SHAPIR O, on he r own be ha lf a n d a s nom i ne e for injure d de positors in her non-se gre gat e d attorne y

c lie nt trust a c c o unt (the Iolta

Ac c ount), Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ITIB A NK, N.A., De fe nda nt-Appe l le e , and JALEH R A D, Nom ina l De fe nda

nt a ga inst whom no c la im s a

re m a de he re in; B EN R AD, Nom ina l De fe nda

nt a ga inst whom no c la im s a

re m a d e he re in; DOES, 1-50, De fe nda nts. No. 20-55934 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-09945-FM O-AGR
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, District Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED MAY17 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d M ay 13, 2021 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

n d B RESS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C ARD O NE, *** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt La ra Sha piro c ha lle nge s a

distric t c ourt orde r de ny ing he r m otion to re m a nd this suit a

ga i nst de fe nda

nt-a ppe l le e C itiba

nk, N.A. Thedistric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1332, a nd we hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie wde novo whe the r the distric t c ourt ha d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r the unde rly ing a c tion. Hajro v . USC IS , 811 F.3d 1086, 1098 (9th C ir. 2016). W e like wise re v i e w de novo thede nia l of a m otion to re m an d for la c k of re m ova l jurisdic tion. Unite d C o mput. Sy s., Inc . v . AT& T C

o rp. , 298 F.3d 756, 760 (9th C i r. 2002). The distric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t, howe ve r, re c e ive c le are rror re v ie w a

nd will only

by disturbe d if we are “ le ft with thede finite and firm
c onvic tion tha

t a m ista ke ha s be e n c o m

m itte d.” Gonzale

z-C aballe ro v . Me na , 251 F.3d 789, 792 (9th C ir. 2001). W e a ffirm
. Assum ing Sha

piro ha s pre se rve d the issue for our re vie w, the distric t c ourt
c orre c tly he ld tha t the R a ds we re nom ina l pa rtie s, so tha

t the re quire m e nts of 28 U.S.C . § 1446(b)(2) did not a pply . Partie s la c king a

c onc re te inte re st in a

n

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Kathle e n C ardone , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion. 2unde rly ing a c tion m ay be de e m e d nom ina l pa

rtie s for re m ova l purpose s. Se e Strotek C orp. v . Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. , 300 F.3d 1129, 1132 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ the pre s e n c e of a

. . . nomina l pa

rty [c annot] de fe at re m ova l on dive rsity grounds” ); se e also N

ominal Party , B LA C K ’ S L A W D I C T I O N A R Y (11th e d . 2019). This inc lude s a

pa rty a g a inst whom

no c la im s a

re brought, S.E.C

. v . C ole l lo , 139 F.3d 674, 676 (9th C ir. 1998), a nd whose role is limite d to “ that of a sta ke holde r” in the unde rly ing a c tion, He w itt v . C ity of Stanton , 798 F.2d 1230, 1233 (9th C ir. 1986). The R a ds did not make an a ppe aranc e in the unde rly i ng a c tion, did not ha v e any c la im s brought a ga inst the m , a nd did not pa

rtic ipate in the unde rly ing c a se in
any m e aningful wa

y . Suc h ina c tion de m onstra

te s tha t the R a ds la c ke d the “ vita l inte re s t” ne c e ssa

ry to a void be ing de e m e d nom i na l pa rtie s. S e e Linc oln Prop. C

o.
v . Roc he , 546 U.S. 81, 92–93 (2005). Nor c an Sha piro shie ld the R a ds from
nom ina l-pa

rty sta tus by c la im ing the y

are re a l pa

rtie s in inte re st. Unde r C a l ifornia la w, a be n e fic ia ry to a n e xpre ss trust is not a re a l pa rty in inte re st a

b se nt
c irc um s ta nc e s not pre se nt he re . Se e Sak s v . Damon Raik

e& C o . , 8 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 869, 874 (C a l. C t. App. 1992). And “ [t] h e re c an be no re a sona ble disputetha

t a n attorne y ’ s c lie nt trust a c c ount is a n e xpre ss trust.” Prak

ashpalan v . Engstrom,

3Lipsc o mb & Lac k, 167 C a l. R ptr. 3d 832, 848 (C a l. C t. App. 2014). The R a ds
we re nom ina l pa

rtie s in this ac tion, a

nd § 1446(b)(2) thus did not a pply
. Eve n if we thought the

R a ds c ould be c onside re d a dve rse pa rtie s for purpose s of 28 U.S.C . § 1446(d), C itiba nk’ s fa i lure to notify

the m of re m ova l wa s
m e re ly a proc e dura l de fe c t, whic h Sha piro wa i ve d. Se e Libhart v . Santa Monic a Dairy C o. , 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 1979) (“ Proc e d ura l de fe c ts in the
re m ova l of a

n a c tion m ay

be wa ive d by

the fa ilure to m ak e a

tim e ly obje c tion be fore the c a se proc e e ds to them e rits.” ). Suc h wa i ve r m ay be e xplic it or im

plic i t. Se e Smith v . My l

an Inc
. , 761 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th C ir. 2014). Although Sha piro sought re m and be fore this c a se proc e e de d to them e rits, shedid not a dvise the distric t c o urt of C itiba

nk’ s fa ilure to c ure or re ne whe r obje c tion to re m ova l until
se ve ra l m onths a fte r the one -y e ar re m ova l window e xpire d . Whe n Sha p iro’ s c ounse l fina lly re v ive d the issue , he did so to e sc a pe an a dve rse judgm e nt due to his m onths of ina c tion in the c a se . Sha

piro ha d thus forfe i te d he r obje c tion to a ny de fe c t in the re m ova l proc e s s. AFFIRM E D.

4