Haeck v. 3M Company

Background

Gary and Elizabeth Haeck filed a California state-court lawsuit against more than thirty defendants, including 3M Company. They alleged strict products liability, negligence, fraud, and loss of consortium. Gary Haeck was suffering from malignant pleural mesothelioma after decades of asbestos exposure. The state court expedited the trial because of his age and terminal cancer.

Several defendants were California citizens, including Allied Fluid Products Corp. The forum-defendant rule generally prevents removal of a diversity case when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the case was filed. The Haecks resolved claims against several defendants, while Allied Fluid received summary judgment on the merits over the Haecks’ objection. 3M later removed the case to federal court, with Hudson’s consent, asserting that the remaining parties were diverse and that more than $75,000 was at stake.

Motion to Remand

The Haecks asked the federal court to return the case to state court. They argued that the forum-defendant rule still barred removal because the California defendants had not all been formally dismissed and because Allied Fluid’s summary judgment was involuntary from their perspective. They also argued that 3M’s notice of removal was inadequately pleaded and untimely.

The court assumed, for purposes of the order, that the notice of removal was adequately pleaded. It did not decide the Haecks’ other arguments because the forum-defendant issue was sufficient to require remand.

The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s voluntary/involuntary rule. Under that rule, a case that initially cannot be removed becomes removable only when the plaintiff voluntarily eliminates the barrier to removal. A defendant’s dismissal over the plaintiff’s objection does not have that effect. The court concluded that Allied Fluid’s summary judgment was involuntary because the Haecks had opposed it. Allied Fluid’s California citizenship therefore continued to block removal under the forum-defendant rule. The court rejected 3M’s request to disregard this rule because Ninth Circuit precedent was binding on the district court.

Fees and Costs

The Haecks requested $21,000 in fees and costs, representing 42 hours of work at $500 per hour. The court found that fees were warranted because Ninth Circuit authority directly established that the forum-defendant rule applied and had rejected the arguments 3M advanced.

The court did not award the full request. It found that time spent on the adequacy of the removal notice and the timeliness of removal was not necessary to the decision and was not reasonably compensable. The court determined that 10 hours at $500 per hour was reasonable and awarded $5,000 in fees and costs.

Disposition

The court granted the Haecks’ motion to remand and granted in part their motion for fees and costs. It awarded $5,000 and stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 25 and 26.