Shaffer v. Abbott Laboratories

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] Creg T ravis Shaffer, ) No. CV-24-03138-PHX-SPL ) [9] ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) [11] ) Abbott Laboratories, et al., ) [12] ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 ) 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court. (Doc. 32). For the 16 following reasons, the Motion is granted. 17 Plaintiff Creg Travis Shaffer, an Arizona resident, initiated this action seeking 18 damages for negligence and strict liability in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). 19 On November 11, 2024, Defendant Abbott removed the case to federal court based on 20 diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). On May 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File 21 an Amended Complaint to add defendants and Motion to Remand, as the addition of those 22 defendants would destroy this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 32). The Court granted 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint but deferred on ruling on 24 Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, as the Court retained jurisdiction until Plaintiff filed the 25 Amended Complaint. (Doc. 41). On August 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed his First Amended 26 Complaint, in which he added four Abbott Laboratories personnel—Douglas Taylor, Bob 27 Stuart, Sean Baker, and Jax Smith—to this action. (Doc. 42 at 3). 28 Federal courts may exercise removal jurisdiction over a case only if subject matter 1 jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 , 1116 2 (9th Cir. 2004). The removing party bears the burden of establishing subject matter 3 jurisdiction as a basis for removal by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 1117 ; Emrich 4 v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 , 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). To satisfy this burden under [5] 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , the removing party must demonstrate that jurisdiction existed at the time 6 of removal. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). For 7 diversity cases, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). 8 Whereas the Constitution contemplates minimal diversity, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires 9 complete diversity—no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. Cady 10 v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1130 (D. Ariz. 2011). There is a “strong 11 presumption against removal jurisdiction,” which “must be rejected if there is any doubt as 12 to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of 13 Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). 14 Plaintiff argues that this case must be remanded state court because complete 15 diversity does not exist between the parties to this litigation. (Doc. 32 at 5). Specifically, 16 the Plaintiff argues that the addition of Defendants Douglas Taylor, Bob Stuart, Sean 17 Baker, and Jax Smith eliminates complete diversity of citizenship. (Id.). Plaintiff identifies 18 these Defendants as Arizona residents in the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 42 at 3). As 19 such, there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, and this Court lacks 20 subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c), the Court must 21 remand this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears 22 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 32) is granted. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall remand this action to 2| the Maricopa County Superior Court and terminate this case. 3 Dated this 21st day of August, 2025. [5] 6 RGR