held<\/a> that it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Court\u2019s remand orders in three cases, Defendant-Appellant Dexcom, Inc (\u201cDexcom\u201d) challenged the District Court\u2019s decision to remand each of the cases under the forum defendant rule, which prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction if any of the parties in interest \u201cproperly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the state in which such action is bought.\u201d\u00a0 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1441(b)(2). Dexcom argued that the forum defendant rule did not apply as it had filed the removal notice before it had been \u201cjoined and served,\u201d a gambit known as a \u201csnap removal.\u201d\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit held that Dexcom\u2019s attempt to avoid the forum defendant rule by removing before it had been served was ineffectual and it dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\nCase Background<\/strong><\/p>\nPlaintiffs Casola, Bottiglier, and Pfeifer brought similar product liability suits against Defendant Dexcom in late 2022 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 6.\u00a0 Plaintiff Casola submitted her complaint electronically on November 23, 2022, and Dexcom received notice of that submission via the Courthouse News Service, an organization that publishes daily reports about civil litigation.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 7.\u00a0 On Monday, November 28, 2022, before the Court had officially \u201cfiled\u201d the Complaint or issued a summons, Dexcom filed a Notice of Removal, invoking diversity jurisdiction.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>\u00a0Dexcom followed a similar strategy for the complaints filed by Plaintiffs Bottiglier and Pfeife by filing \u201csnap removals\u201d before the case was officially filed.\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0at n. 4.<\/p>\nOn December 29, 2022, 31 days after the original Notice of Removals were filed, Plaintiffs filed motions for remand, framing the remand on the basis of \u201csubject matter jurisdiction\u201d in an attempt to avoid the 30-day deadline for remand.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 9.\u00a0 Plaintiffs argued that the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Dexcom\u2019s notices were \u201clegally void\u201d since they were filed before the complaint had been processed, while also asserting that remand was proper due to the forum defendant rule.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>In March of 2023, after additional briefing from both parties, the District Court granted the remand motions, holding that the remand was proper due to the forum defendant rule.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Importantly, the District Court rejected Dexcom\u2019s argument that Plaintiffs had waived their forum-defendant objections by filing their remand motions 31 days after the removal was filed because the notices of removal were \u201cdefective,\u201d which did not start the 30-day window.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\nDexcom appealed these remand orders.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\nThe Ninth Circuit\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Ninth Circuit addressed whether the District Court had the power to remand each of the cases on the basis of a non-jurisdictional defect, i.e.,<\/em> the forum-defendant rule, that was asserted more than 30 days after the notice of removal was filed.\u00a0 To do so, the Ninth Circuit addressed three subsidiary issues.<\/p>\nFirst, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Dexcom\u2019s Notice of Removals were premature.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 14.\u00a0 Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that, for purposes of removability, the complaint was filed in California state court when it was processed and acknowledged as officially filed by the clerk.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 15.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit noted that the Complaint is not filed when it is electronically submitted because the clerk must then review the submission for compliance with local court rules, ensure that filing fees are paid, and can even reject the submission if defective.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 19.\u00a0 On that basis, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with Dexcom\u2019s position that the complaints were deemed filed upon electronic submission.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 24.<\/p>\nThe Ninth Circuit also addressed Dexcom\u2019s policy argument that the it should avoid adopting different rules for the timing of filing of a complaint for removal purposes on the one hand, and statute of limitations and similar timeliness purposes on the other.\u00a0 Specifically, Dexcom argued that rejection of its position that the Complaint is filed on delivery will lead to situations where a complaint could be treated as filed for the purposes of the statute of limitations but not filed for purposes of removal.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 28.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit found this argument unpersuasive.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit noted that the stakes here are minimal, as the 30-day deadline for removal only starts upon service of the Complaint.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>Additionally, the Ninth Circuit opined that \u201csnap removals\u201d are still viable in some district courts in California, so adopting Dexcom\u2019s position would give in-forum defendants with access to services like Courthouse News Services a safe harbor in which to remove while not concerning themselves with service of the Complaint.\u00a0 Id. at <\/em>30.<\/p>\nFinally, the Ninth Circuit addressed whether or not the premature notices of removal nonetheless started the 30-day clock for non-jurisdictional objections to removal.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit determined that, if the notices of removal were defective for merely procedural or technical reasons, they may have held that the defectiveness did not block the 30-day window from starting.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 32.\u00a0 However, the Ninth Circuit instead held that these notices of removal had a foundational <\/em>defect, which rendered them legally null and void.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 33.\u00a0 The Ninth Circuit maintained that because there was no pending civil action to be removed, the notices of removal did not confer jurisdiction on the District Court.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em>While that defect was cured by Dexcom\u2019s subsequent filing of supplemental notices of removal, the Ninth Circuit found that the 30-day clock would have started on the date of supplemental filing, not the original date of filing.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\nIn sum, the Ninth Circuit made it clear that it did not decide whether or not Dexcom violated the forum-defendant rule.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at 34.\u00a0 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit refused to address whether or not pre-service \u201csnap removals\u201d are proper, even though the District Court had impliedly held that pre-service \u201csnap removals\u201d are improper.\u00a0 Id.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\nImplications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\nWhile the Ninth Circuit did not address the applicability of pre-service \u201csnap removals,\u201d it has effectively closed the door on pre-filing \u201csnap removals.\u201d<\/p>\n
While companies may prefer to have cases heard in the federal courts, this decision makes it clear that the removal must be lodged after <\/em>the Complaint is filed and acknowledged by the clerk.\u00a0 A failure to follow this guideline will lead to remand of the claims.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Sarah Gilbert, and Nick Baltaxe Duane Morris Takeaways: In a consolidated appeal \u2013 entitled Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., Bottiglier v. Dexcom, Inc., and Pfeifer v. Dexcom, Inc., Nos. 23-55403, 23-55435 & 23-55437 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024) – the Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the … <\/p>\n
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Defendant\u2019s Attempt At \u201cSuper Snap Removals\u201d\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0“<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1397","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-procedural-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1397","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1397"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1397\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1397"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1397"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1397"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1397"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2024\/04\/GettyImages-1401114230.jpg\")
<\/a>By: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Sarah Gilbert, and Nick Baltaxe<\/strong><\/p>\n