Opinion
8:23-cv-1535-TPB-AAS
10-12-2023
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND
TOM BARBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's “Motion to Remand to State Court” (Doc. 7). Defendant's original notice of removal (Doc. 1) contained an obvious scrivener's error stating that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware, a fact that would defeat diversity jurisdiction, despite alleging that complete diversity existed and setting forth specific allegations demonstrating that Defendant is a citizen only of Washington. Defendant filed a corrected notice of removal acknowledging it made a mistake, and clarifying that Defendant is a citizen of Washington. (Doc. 13).
“Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon terms, in the trial or appellate courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Plaintiff's only ground for seeking remand is therefore moot. As it appears there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the motion to remand is DENIED. Plaintiff's “Motion to Shorten Deadlines and Expedite” (Doc. 11) is also DENIED.
Had Plaintiff's counsel simply conferred with opposing counsel, as required by Local Rule 3.01(g), Defendant's mistake would certainly have been identified and corrected, and this entire round of motion practice - including approximately 20 total pages of unnecessary filings - would have been avoided. The Court notes that in the short life of this case both parties have already violated Rule 1, Fed. R. Civ. P., which requires that the rules of procedure be employed by the parties “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” See (Docs. 19; 20). Advocacy that violates Rule 1 is not effective.
DONE and ORDERED.