N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHARLA TIPTON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. ZIM M ER , INC ., a

B usine s s Entity ; e t a l ., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-56609 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-04171-B R O-JC 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 B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 6, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Sha rla Tipton a p pe a ls from se ve ra l distric t c ourt orde rs ruling tha t “ M ike (La st Na

m e Unknown)” wa s a

fra udule ntly joine d de fe nda

nt a nd e nte ring judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s Zim

m e r Inc ., Zim

m e r B iom e t Holdings, Inc . a

nd Zim m e r Surgic a l, Inc . (c olle c tive ly , “ Zim m e r” ). W e have 

# FIL ED MAR 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt. “ W e . . . re vie w issue s of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion a nd de nia ls of m o tions to re m an d re m ove d c a se s de novo.” R itc he y v . Upjohn Drug C

o. , 139 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th C ir. 1998). 1. Tipton a

rgue s tha t Zim m e r wa ive d a

ny argum e nt tha

t “ M ike ” wa s a fraudule ntly joine d de fe nda nt by fa iling to raise tha

t a rgum e nt in its notic e of re m ova l. A m otion to re m a nd tha t is ba s e d on a

proc e d ura l de fe c t in re m ova l m

ust be m a de within 30 da

y s a fte r the filing of a

notic e of re m ova l. 28 U.S.C . § 1447(c ). Zim m e r file d the notic e of re m ova l on June3, 2015. Tipton file d he r m o tion to re m and on M ay

18, 2016, we ll a fte r the 30-da y de a dline . 2. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de te rm i ne d tha t “ M i ke ,” the only

non-dive rse de fe nda n t, wa s fra

udule ntly joine d to de fe at dive rsity jurisdic tion. Se e Morris v
. Princ e ss C ruise s, Inc
. , 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ Joinde r of anondive rse de fe nda

nt is de e m e d fra

udule nt . . . if thepla intiff fa ils to sta te a c a use of a c tion a ga inst a

re side nt de fe nda

nt, a nd the fa ilure is obvious ac c ording to the se ttle d rule s of the sta

te .” ) (a lte ration a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). B e c a use a distric t c o urt m ay

ignore the c itiz e nship of a fra udule ntly joine d de fe nda n t in de te rm ining whe the r dive rsity jurisdic tion is pre se nt, s e e Hunte r v .

2Philip Morris USA , 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th C ir. 2009), thec ourt did not err by

de ny ing Tipton’ s m otion to re m and the c a se to sta te c ourt. 3. Tipton also c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in Zim m e r’ s favor a

nd its de nia l of he r m otion for a ne w tria l. Tipton’ s m otion wa s pre m ise d on the argum e nt tha t “ M ike ” wa s not fra

udule ntly joine d a nd tha t the distric t c o urt the re fore la c ke d subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion a nd c ould not e nte r judgm e nt in Zim

m e r’ s favor. The a dditional inform ation subm itte d by Tipton in support of he r m otion for a ne wtria l, whic h the distric t c o urt c onside re d, did not e sta blish tha t “ M ike ” wa s prope rly

joine d to he r suit. Thedistric t c ourt did not err by de ny ing Tipton’ s m otion. AFFIRM E D.

3