Aniko Conway v. Medsurant, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Aniko Conway's motion to dismiss Medsurant Operating, LLC as an improper defendant and to remand the action to state court. The court held that removal was timely because Medsurant Operating was a named and served defendant when it removed the case, and that the later decision to dismiss that defendant did not affect removal jurisdiction. The court also ordered lead counsel for both parties to show cause why they should not each be sanctioned $2,500 for failing to file required proposed statements of decision.

Holdings

1. Removal was timely because Medsurant Operating filed its notice of removal less than thirty days after it was served with the summons and complaint.
2. Medsurant Operating was not a nominal party at the time of removal, and Plaintiff's later decision to dismiss it did not affect the propriety of the earlier removal. The court declined to dismiss it under Rule 21 and stated that Plaintiff could seek to drop it under Rule 41.
3. The court ordered Plaintiff's and Defendants' lead counsel to show cause in writing why each should not be sanctioned $2,500 for violating the standing order; sanctions were not imposed in the order itself.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Medsurant Operating's removal was timely when it removed the action within thirty days after being served, even though other defendants had been served earlier.
2. Whether Plaintiff's later determination that Medsurant Operating was not her employer made Medsurant Operating an improper or nominal defendant and required dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
3. Whether Plaintiff and Defendants should be ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for violating the court's standing order.

Disposition

other