The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND (Dkt. 3)
On December 27, 2011, Alan Warner and Patricia Warner ("Plaintiffs") brought an action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in which Brad L. Penenberg ("Penenberg"), Wright Medical Group, Inc. ("Wright Group"), Wright Medical Technology, Inc. ("Wright Technology"), and Does 1 through 100 (collectively, "Defendants") were initially named as the adverse parties. Motion, Exh. 2, Dkt. 3-2. The complaint advanced five causes of action, stemming from the installation of Alan Warner's hip implants:
(i) medical malpractice (by Alan Warner, against Penenberg); (ii) strict products liability (by Alan Warner, against Wright Group and Wright Technology); (iii) negligence (by Alan Warner, against Wright Group and Wright Technology); (iv) breach of warranty (by Alan Warner, against Wright Group and Wright Technology); and (v) loss of consortium (by Patricia Warner, against all Defendants). Id.
On August 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed amendments to the complaint, replacing Doe 1 and Doe 2 with Harlan C. Amstutz, a medical corporation (the "Amstutz Corporation"), and Harlan C. Amstutz, an individual ("Amstutz"). Opposition, Exh. 2, Dkt. 10-1. However, Amstutz and the Amstutz Corporation were not served until December 26, 2012. Id. at Exh. 5-6. On August 30, 2012, pursuant to a request from Plaintiffs, Penenberg was dismissed from the action without prejudice. Id. at Exh. 4. Wright Group and Wright Technology claim they first learned of Penenberg's dismissal on January 3, 2013. Id. at p. 4, Dkt. 10. Plaintiffs and Penenberg are California residents; Wright Group and Wright Technology are incorporated in Delaware and have their principal place of business in Tennessee. Motion, Exh. 2, Dkt. 3-2. The Amstutz Corporation is a California corporation; Defendants contend that Amstutz is a California citizen, although this does not appear to be pleaded. Opposition, Exh. 2, Dkt. 10-1; Motion at p. 4, Dkt. 3.
On December 14, 2012, Defendants Wright Group and Wright Technology (collectively, the "Wright Defendants") removed the action to this Court. Dkt. 1. The Wright Defendants contend that there is complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because: (i) they are citizens of Delaware and Tennessee at ¶ 4); (ii) Plaintiffs are citizens of California; and (iii) the apparent California citizenship of Amstutz and the Amstutz Corporation does not defeat diversity because, although each was substituted into this action as a Doe defendant on August 16, 2012, neither was timely served under the California Rules of Court, and both were served following the removal of this action. On January 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand (the "Motion"). Plaintiffs contend that the service of Amstutz and the Amstutz Corporation (collectively, the "Amstutz Defendants") was completed on December 26, 2012. They contend that, as a result, there is not complete diversity because Plaintiffs and the Amstutz Defendants are citizens of California. Dkt. 3.
Defendants filed their opposition on February 4, 2013 (Dkt. 10), and Plaintiffs filed their reply on February 11, 2013 (Dkt. 11). The Motion is set for hearing on February 25, 2013. The Court has considered the matters raised by the pleadings submitted by each of the parties and has concluded that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and Local Rule 7-15, the Motion can be decided without oral argument. Consequently, the Court takes the February 25, 2013 hearing off calendar and issues this written ruling. For the reasons stated in the Order, the Motion is GRANTED, and this matter is remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Defendants contend that, pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.110, Plaintiffs were required to serve the Amstutz Defendants within 30 days of naming them as Defendants. See California Rule of Court 3.110(b) ("When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint."). Because Plaintiffs did not serve these defendants within that 30-day period, and served them after the removal of this action, Defendants contend that the citizenship of Amstutz and the Amstutz Corporation cannot defeat diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction ...