Case Name: TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION; Allianz Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-25
Citations: 111 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: No. 03-35515
Parties: TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION; Allianz Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
TODD PACIFIC SHIPYARDS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION; Allianz Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-35515.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2004.
Decided Oct. 25, 2004.
William F. Cronin, Esq., Michael A. Moore, Esq., Corr Cronin LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Scott G. Johnson, Esq., Patrick E. Ship-stead, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Lawrence D. Mason, Esq., David E. Heiss, Esq., Peter E. Kanaris, Esq., Daar Fisher Kanaris & Vanek, Patrick S. Brady, Carl Edward Forsberg, Esq., Catherine E. Doudnikoff, Forsberg & Umlauf, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Todd Pacific Shipyards, Inc., appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Westport Insurance Corp. and Allianz Insurance Co. on Todd's claim for insurance benefits. We affirm.
(1) Washington law permits one year limitation clauses in insurance contracts, and Todd does not persuade us that tolling, equitable or otherwise, would be proper under Washington law. Thus, Todd's action was barred.
(2) Todd also asserts that removal of the action from state to federal court was procedurally defective, but whether there was a procedural defect or not, Westport's joining in the notice of removal and the later entry of judgment cured any problem. See Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 970-71 (9th Cir.2002); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Wash. Rev.Code § 48.18.200(l)(c).
. There was no showing of diligence by Todd or of bad faith or deception by the insurers. See, e.g., State v. McLean (In re Carlstad), 150 Wash.2d 583, 80 P.3d 587, 591-92 (2003); Millay v. Cam, 135 Wash.2d 193, 955 P.2d 791, 797 (1998); Gunnier v. Yakima Heart Ctr., Inc., 134 Wash.2d 854, 953 P.2d 1162, 1168 (1998); Douchette v. Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403, 117 Wash.2d 805, 818 P.2d 1362, 1364-65 & n. 6 (1991).
. See, e.g., Logan v. N.-W. Ins. Co., 45 Wash.App. 95, 724 P.2d 1059, 1061 (1986); Wothers v. Farmers Ins. Co., 101 Wash.App. 75, 5 P.3d 719, 721 (2000).
. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).