The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-55939•2000, by its Trustee Letitia M. Cooper, an individual v. John L. Parmigiani
17-55939Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 21, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COOPER TRUST DTD 10-05-2000, by its
Trustee Letitia M. Cooper, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN L. PARMIGIANI,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-55939
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04379-PA-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Defendant John L. Parmigiani appeals from the district court’s order
remanding plaintiff’s action to California state court.1 We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 The appellee has not submitted an answering brief.
FILED
DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 17-55939
removed case. Lively v. Wild Oats Mkt., Inc., 456 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 2006).
We reverse and remand.
The district court remanded the action to state court sua sponte on the basis
of non-jurisdictional procedural defects in the removal process. However, given
that diversity jurisdiction existed over the action at the time of the district court’s
remand order, the district court had no authority to remand the case to state court
on procedural grounds where plaintiff did not move for remand. See Kuxhausen v.
BMW Fin. Servs., NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017) (failure to attach
“a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served” to the notice of removal is a
curable procedural defect); Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead
Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court does not have
authority to remand a case sua sponte based on procedural defects).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.