Rosa Manzo v. Howmet Aerospace Inc.

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-05520-GW-MAA Document 24 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:624 REMAND/JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-05520-GW (MAAx) Date September 28, 2022 Title Manzo v. Howmet Aerospace Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Javier Gonzalez None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION; VACATING HEARING ON MOTION TO REMAND AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE The Court has reviewed the response of defendants Howmet Aerospace Inc. and Howmet Global Fastening Systems Inc. (collectively, “Howmet”) to the Court’s August 31, 20221 Order to Show Cause re: Fraudulent Joinder. It is clear to the Court that Howmet cannot meet the fraudulent joinder standard as it is understood and presented in Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by and through Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018). Howmet’s citation to cases preceding Grancare – especially district court cases preceding Grancare – for the proposition that a court may not consider post-removal amendments in adjudging fraudulent joinder is misguided for the obvious reason that it is Grancare that is controlling on this point.2 The action will therefore be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction/complete diversity. Any current deficiencies in the claim of plaintiff Rosa Manzo (“Plaintiff”) against co-defendant (and presumed-California citizen) Javier Garcia (“Garcia”) are not deficiencies – if they are deficiencies at all – that cannot be cured by way of amendment (in a proceeding before a court properly having jurisdiction over the matter). See Grancare, 889 F.3d at 550, 552. That Plaintiff’s allegations in her Complaint do not meaningfully differ from those she included in the course of administratively exhausting her claim does not mean that Plaintiff has already had two opportunities before a court in which to state her claim. 1Erroneously-dated August 31, 2021. 2In addition to pre-Grancare district court decisions, Howmet cites Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2006). That case dealt with a post-removal amendment removing the case’s sole federal claim, see id. at 976, not a question of whether a possibility-of-amendment must be taken into consideration for purposes of assessing fraudulent joinder. : Initials of Preparer JG CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-05520-GW-MAA Document 24 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:625 REMAND/JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:22-cv-05520-GW (MAAx) Date September 28, 2022 Title Manzo v. Howmet Aerospace Inc., et al. Howmet spends the bulk of its response on asserting that Garcia was not properly-joined-and- served at the time of the removal of this case. That is only relevant to the question of whether the removal violated the no-local-defendant rule, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Unlike the situations in the cases Howmet cites, see Docket No. 18, at 3:7-5:8, that is not the issue here. The issue here concerns the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction – whether there is complete diversity – and whether Garcia was or was not served at the time of removal is irrelevant to that question. See, e.g., Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 591 F.2d 74, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1979); Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1969) (“Whenever federal jurisdiction in a removal case depends upon complete diversity, the existence of diversity is determined from the fact of citizenship of the parties named and not from the fact of service.”); see also Phillips & Stevenson, Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Federal Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022), ¶ 2:2341, at 2D-23 (“[T]he citizenship of all defendants – both served and unserved – determines diversity jurisdiction. The case is not removable on diversity grounds in the first place if any plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of the same state. It makes no difference whether the ‘local’ defendant has been served.”). The Court can only ignore his presence as a defendant (and presumed-California-citizenship) if the fraudulent-joinder standard is satisfied. For reasons already-expressed, it is not. The matter is remanded forthwith.1 The October 13, 2022 hearing set for Plaintiff’s motion for remand – which does not seek an award of attorney’s fees – is vacated as moot, as is the Scheduling Conference now set for that same date. It is so ordered. 1 The remand herein is based on the Court’s August 31, 2022 Order to Show Cause and not upon Plaintiff’s motion for remand. : Initials of Preparer JG CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 2