Markowitz v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

S.D. California

Markowitz v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

DecidedNovember 27, 2019

Docket3:19-cv-00655

StatusUnknown

This text of Markowitz v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Markowitz v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Markowitz v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDICE MARKOWITZ, Case No.: 19cv655-L-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL 14 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16

18 Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., CooperSurgical, Inc. and The Cooper 19 Companies, Inc. removed this personal injury action from State court pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. The action was remanded for failure to sufficiently allege 21 diversity jurisdiction based on fraudulent joinder. (See doc. no. 6.) Pending before the 22 Court is Defendants' motion for leave to amend notice of removal to allege additional 23 facts in support of fraudulent joinder. (Doc. no. 7.) Plaintiff filed an opposition and 24 Defendants replied. 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Defendants' motion is granted. See Willingham v. 26 Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 n.3 (1969); Cohn v. Petsmart, 281 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (9th Cir. 27 2002); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 28 1987). Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Empire of Am.), 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988), 1 upon which Plaintiff relies, 1s distinguishable, because it addresses successive notices of 2 ||removal rather than amendment under 28 U.S.C. §1653 to amend defective allegations of 3 || jurisdiction. 4 Accordingly, no later than December 6, 2019, Defendants shall file their amended 5 notice of removal, if any. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the sufficiency of 6 || the proposed amended notice of removal filed with Defendants’ motion. (Doc. no. 7 at 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: November 27, 2019 pee ep? 11 H . James Lorenz, 1D United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page numbers are assigned by the Electronic Case Filing System.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CANDICE MARKOWITZ, Case No.: 19cv655-L-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF REMOVAL 14 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. ET AL., 15 Defendants. 16

18 Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., CooperSurgical, Inc. and The Cooper 19 Companies, Inc. removed this personal injury action from State court pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. §§1332 and 1441. The action was remanded for failure to sufficiently allege 21 diversity jurisdiction based on fraudulent joinder. (See doc. no. 6.) Pending before the 22 Court is Defendants' motion for leave to amend notice of removal to allege additional 23 facts in support of fraudulent joinder. (Doc. no. 7.) Plaintiff filed an opposition and 24 Defendants replied. 25 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1653, Defendants' motion is granted. See Willingham v. 26 Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 n.3 (1969); Cohn v. Petsmart, 281 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (9th Cir. 27 2002); Rockwell Int'l Credit Corp. v. U.S. Aircraft Ins. Group, 823 F.2d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 28 1987). Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Ct. (Empire of Am.), 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988), 1 upon which Plaintiff relies, 1s distinguishable, because it addresses successive notices of 2 ||removal rather than amendment under 28 U.S.C. §1653 to amend defective allegations of 3 || jurisdiction. 4 Accordingly, no later than December 6, 2019, Defendants shall file their amended 5 notice of removal, if any. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the sufficiency of 6 || the proposed amended notice of removal filed with Defendants’ motion. (Doc. no. 7 at 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: November 27, 2019 pee ep? 11 H . James Lorenz, 1D United States District Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page numbers are assigned by the Electronic Case Filing System.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Markowitz v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markowitz-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-casd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack