FEI Enterprises, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company, CV 19-1991 DSF. (2019)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20190322965
Visitors: 18
Filed: Mar. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2019
Summary: Order REMANDING Case to State Court DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . This case was removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The removing defendants admit that not all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants. They claim, however, that defendants George Knopfler and Hamrick & Evans, LLP are fraudulently joined because "there is no joint, several or alternative liability and where the claim against the diverse defendant has no real connection to the claim against the nond
Summary: Order REMANDING Case to State Court DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . This case was removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The removing defendants admit that not all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants. They claim, however, that defendants George Knopfler and Hamrick & Evans, LLP are fraudulently joined because "there is no joint, several or alternative liability and where the claim against the diverse defendant has no real connection to the claim against the nondi..
More
Order REMANDING Case to State Court
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
This case was removed from state court based on diversity jurisdiction. The removing defendants admit that not all plaintiffs are diverse from all defendants. They claim, however, that defendants George Knopfler and Hamrick & Evans, LLP are fraudulently joined because "there is no joint, several or alternative liability and where the claim against the diverse defendant has no real connection to the claim against the nondiverse defendant." Notice of Removal ¶ 11 (quoting Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1988)).
However, there is an obvious connection between the claims against the diverse and non-diverse defendants. The claims against the diverse defendants — two insurers of Plaintiff FEI — revolve around the way those insurers handled the (failed) settlement of an underlying lawsuit over a construction contract. The non-diverse defendants are the attorney in that lawsuit and his firm, who are alleged to have committed malpractice during mediation. The claims are obviously connected and there is no misjoinder, egregious or otherwise.
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
