Good v. Google LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-05622
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Good v. Google LLC, Judge Corley ordered Societe Air France to explain how it could remove a case when it was not named as a defendant.
Diamond Good, Societe Air France, Air France-KLM Group, and the other defendants were affected by the court's directions concerning removal and remand briefing. The order required Societe Air France to explain its authority to remove the case but did not decide whether the case would be remanded.
What happened
In Good v. Google LLC, Diamond Good sued several companies in state court, including the Air France-KLM Group. Societe Air France, which said it was a subsidiary and had been misnamed, removed the case to federal court, and Good asked the court to send it back.
The court questioned whether Societe Air France was legally allowed to remove the case because federal law generally permits a defendant to remove a qualifying state-court case. The complaint named the Air France-KLM Group—not Societe Air France—as a defendant. The court also noted that Societe Air France had argued in another motion that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Air France-KLM Group.
Judge Corley did not decide the motion to remand in this order. Instead, the court ordered Societe Air France to submit, by December 1, 2022, a brief of no more than five pages explaining how its removal was proper, and told Good not to file more remand briefing without permission.
The detailed version
- Good v. Google LLC · No. 3:22-cv-05622
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Nov. 21, 2022
Background
Diamond Good filed an amended complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Airbnb, Inc., WhatsApp LLC, Hipcamp, Inc., and Air France-KLM Group. The complaint asserted, among other allegations, that the defendants participated in conduct that harmed Good's business, finances, and reputation. Good sought $99,223 and punitive damages.
Societe Air France appeared in the case and said it had been incorrectly named as Air France-KLM Group. It removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, relying on the Montreal Convention and arguing that the treaty completely preempted Good's state-law tort claim concerning travel from Nigeria. Good moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court.
The remand issue
The court explained that only a defendant may remove a state-court case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), and that the party removing the case bears the burden of showing that removal is proper. The court also rejected Good's argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) required the court to rule on the remand motion within 30 days after removal. The court explained that the statute sets a 30-day deadline for making certain remand motions; it does not impose a 30-day deadline for the court to decide them.
The amended complaint and summons named Air France-KLM Group, not Societe Air France. The court noted that the address where Good attempted service on Air France-KLM Group was actually the location of Societe Air France, a subsidiary. The court further noted that Societe Air France had filed a motion to dismiss claims against Air France-KLM Group for lack of personal jurisdiction while also maintaining that Good had sued Air France-KLM Group.
Order
The court ordered Societe Air France to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should accept its position—by filing a brief of no more than five pages by December 1, 2022. The requested explanation concerned how Societe Air France could properly remove the case when it was not a named defendant in the amended complaint and had moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Air France-KLM Group.
This order did not grant or deny Good's motion to remand. The court also instructed Good not to file additional briefing on that motion without the court's permission. The order was signed by the United States District Judge on November 21, 2022.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.