United States District Court, C.D. California
RAUL CAMACHO, ET AL.
JLG INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.
PRESENT: HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND
the Court is Plaintiffs Raul Camacho (“Camacho”)
and Lucia R. Materrano's (“Materrano”)
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand
Case to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
(“Motion”) (Dkt. 14). Materrano is representing
Camacho as his guardian ad litem and is also a
plaintiff in this action, seeking damages for loss of
consortium. The Court finds this matter appropriate for
resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having reviewed the moving papers and
considered the parties' arguments, the Court DENIES
Facts and Procedural History
Court adopts the facts as set out in Plaintiffs'
Complaint (“Compl.”) (Dkt. 1) and JLG Industries,
Inc.'s (“JLG”) Notice of Removal (Dkt. 1).
about December 8, 2015, Plaintiff Camacho was installing
glass in a hotel while standing on a scissor lift. Compl.
¶ 9. While bending over to lift the glass, he slipped
and fell to the concrete below. Id. ¶ 11.
Plaintiffs allege that Camacho suffered traumatic brain
injury, among other severe injuries, as a direct result of
the fall. Id. ¶ 12.
February 9, 2017, Plaintiffs brought this action in the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange. Notice of
Removal ¶ 1. They allege that a defective condition
existed in equipment manufactured by JLG and rented out by
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“Sunbelt”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) and seek damages for product
liability, negligence, and loss of consortium. Id.
5, 2017, Plaintiffs' Workmen's Compensation Carrier,
National Security Insurance Company (“NSIC”)
filed a motion to intervene as a subrogee pursuant to
California Labor Code §§ 3852-3. Mot. at 1. The
Superior Court scheduled a hearing on NSIC's motion for
July 17, 2017. On July 12, 2017, a week after NSIC filed its
motion to intervene, Defendant JLG removed the case based on
diversity jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiffs do not
contest that diversity jurisdiction exists in this matter.
August 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion, arguing
that removal while the motion to intervene was pending in
state court is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c).
Id. at 2. On August 21, 2017, Defendant Sunbelt
filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
(“Sunbelt Opp'n”) (Dkt. 15). Also on August
21, 2017, Defendant JLG joined in Sunbelt's Opposition
(Dkt. 16) and filed its own Opposition (“JLG
Opp'n”) (Dkt. 17).
of a case from state to federal court is governed by 28
U.S.C. § 1441, which provides in pertinent part that
“[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by an 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 . . . to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the
place where such action is pending.” The removing
defendant must file a notice of removal in the appropriate
United States District Court, together with all process,
pleadings, and orders served upon the defendant. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(a). Notice of removal must be filed within thirty
days of receiving a copy of the original complaint, or
“within 30 days after the service of summons upon the
defendant, if such initial pleading has then been filed in
court and is not required to be served on the defendant,
whichever period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
Remand may be ordered for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
or any defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. §
protect the jurisdiction of state courts, removal
jurisdiction should be strictly construed in favor of remand.
Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689,
698 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp.
v. Sheet, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941)). If there is any
doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,
remand must be ordered. See Ethridge v. Harbor House
Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988).
28 U.S.C. § 1445(c), Congress expressly prohibits
removal of “[a] civil action in any State court arising
under the workmen's compensation laws of such State . . .
.” Claims under California Labor Code § 3852 arise
under California's workers' compensation laws and
therefore may not be removed from state court. Zurich Am.
Ins. Co. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 242 F.Supp.2d 736, 739
(E.D. Cal. 2003). Plaintiffs argue that removing their claim
while a motion to intervene under California Labor Code
§ 3852 was pending in state court violated 28 U.S.C.
§ 1445(c). Mot. at 2. In response, Defendants argue that
§ 1445(c) was not implicated, because only NSIC's
subrogation claim-not Plaintiffs' claims ...