Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Terran Sprewell filed a civil action against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and other defendants. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, docketed as CV 26-7483-E. On September 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand seeking to return the case to state court.
The motion was considered by United States Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick in chambers without a hearing. Plaintiff argued that removal was defective because an unserved defendant did not join in the notice of removal and because the complaint included state law claims in addition to federal claims. No attorneys appeared for either party at the proceedings.
The procedural posture is significant: the case had already been removed to federal court, and Plaintiff sought to undo that removal. The motion was filed approximately one month before the court's ruling, and the court resolved it on the papers without oral argument. The docket reflects that the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Eick, who issued the ruling as a civil minutes order.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. The court held that neither ground asserted by Plaintiff warrants remand. First, citing Destfino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2011), the court ruled that an unserved defendant's failure to join in the removal does not invalidate the removal or require remand. Second, citing Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n, 731 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1984), and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (c), the court held that the presence of state law claims alongside federal claims does not furnish a basis for remanding a properly removed action.
The order resolves the procedural challenge to removal jurisdiction. The case remains in federal court. The court did not address the merits of the underlying claims, the sufficiency of service of process, or any potential motions to dismiss. The ruling is limited to the propriety of the removal and the denial of remand.
The court's reliance on Destfino v. Reiswig is particularly instructive. In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that a defendant who has not been served at the time of removal need not join in the notice of removal. This principle prevents plaintiffs from defeating removal by strategically delaying service on certain defendants. The court's citation to Salveson similarly confirms that the presence of state law claims does not defeat removal where federal question jurisdiction exists.
Key Takeaways
- An unserved defendant's failure to consent to removal does not constitute a procedural defect requiring remand under Ninth Circuit precedent. The rule of unanimity applies only to defendants who have been properly served at the time of removal.
- The inclusion of state law claims in a complaint containing federal claims does not defeat removal jurisdiction. Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), and the presence of such claims does not undermine the propriety of removal.
- Motions for remand based on these grounds are routinely denied in the Central District of California following binding Ninth Circuit authority. Practitioners should be aware that these arguments are unlikely to succeed absent unusual circumstances.
- A magistrate judge may resolve a motion for remand in chambers without oral argument, as occurred here. The civil minutes form serves as the operative order, and its concise reasoning is sufficient to establish the law of the case on the removal question.
Why It Matters
This order reaffirms established Ninth Circuit removal jurisprudence within the Central District of California. It clarifies that plaintiffs cannot defeat federal jurisdiction by pointing to technical defects in unanimity among unserved defendants or by the mere presence of pendent state law claims. The decision promotes judicial efficiency by allowing federal courts to retain jurisdiction over mixed federal-state claim actions once federal question jurisdiction is properly invoked.
For litigants in the Central District of California, this order serves as a reminder that removal procedure is governed by well-settled Ninth Circuit authority. The court's summary denial without extended analysis underscores that these arguments are considered settled law. The order also illustrates the practical reality that magistrate judges routinely handle procedural motions in removed cases, and that such rulings may be issued in the form of brief civil minutes rather than formal published opinions.