Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Hyundai Motor America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA J S 6 CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 8:24-cv-01736-FWS-DFM Date: September 11, 2024 Title: Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO REMAND [15] This case arises out of a Complaint in Subrogation filed by Plaintiff Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Plaintiff United Services Automobile Association, Plaintiff Casualty Insurance Company, Plaintiff USAA General Indemnity Company, and Plaintiff USAA, S.A. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Defendant Hyundai Motor America, Defendant Hyundai Motor Company, Defendant Kia America, Inc., and Defendant Kia Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”’) in Orange County Superior Court. (See generally Dkt. 1-2 (Complaint in Subrogation).) In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert eleven state-law causes of action against Defendants. (See id. 4] 147-277.) On August 8, 2024, Defendants removed the case to this court on the basis of diversity (Dkt. 1 (Notice of Removal) at 3.) In the Notice of Removal, Defendants acknowledged that complete diversity of citizenship existed in part due to the fact that certain defendants had not yet been served with the Complaint. (/d. at 4.) In other words, Defendants attempted to perform a “snap removal,” or “[t]he practice of circumventing application of the forum-defendant rule by removing before defendants are served.” Lam Sing v. Sunrise Senior Inc., 2023 WL 3686251, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2023).

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL J 6

Case No. 8:24-cv-01736-FWS-DFM Date: September 11, 2024 Title: Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America, et al. On September 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand, arguing that “Plaintiffs successfully served at least one California Defendant before Defendants filed the Notice of Removal.” (Dkt. 15 (‘Motion’) or “Mot.”).) In the Motion, Plaintiffs stated that “Plaintiffs and Defendants met and conferred in advance of filing this Motion, and Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.” (/d. at 2.) On September 10, 2024, Defendants filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion, stating that they “do not oppose plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. 15-1) for the sole reason that it appears service on one California defendant was effectuated before the removal papers were filed.” (Dkt. 17 at 2.) The record before the court reflects that there is not complete diversity of citizenship in this case, and that the court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (cleaned up). “Federal must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must remand this case to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED. See also C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (explaining that failure to oppose a motion “may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion”). This case is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court as case number 30- 2024-01417319-CU-NP-NJC. Finally, the court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.””); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15 (authorizing courts to “dispense oral argument on any motion except where an oral hearing is required by statute’’). Accordingly, the hearing set for October 10, 2024, is VACATED and off calendar. The Order to Show Cause [13] is hereby DISCHARGED.