## Facts

- An electrical lineman died after an aerial lift bucket allegedly moved unexpectedly, struck a utility pole, and threw him into a high-voltage wire.
- The decedent’s estate and minor child sued the lift manufacturer in California state court, asserting wrongful-death and product-defect claims.
- Plaintiffs were citizens of Alaska; the manufacturer was asserted to be a citizen of Alabama; the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied.
- The manufacturer removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- In federal discovery, plaintiffs learned the utility pole owner (PG&E), a California citizen, may have negligently caused or contributed to activation of the lift controls.
- Plaintiffs moved to amend to add PG&E as a defendant and also moved to remand to state court.
- The district court granted joinder of PG&E but denied remand.
- Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to remand.

## Issues

1. Whether a bankruptcy court order required the district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction and remand the action.
2. Whether post-removal joinder of a forum-state defendant who remained diverse from plaintiffs eliminated diversity jurisdiction or otherwise required remand under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) and 1447(c).
3. Whether petitioners met the stringent standard for mandamus relief.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in determining the bankruptcy court order did not require abstention and remand.
- The court held diversity jurisdiction was not destroyed by joining a forum-state defendant after removal where complete diversity remained.
- The case remained in federal court for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; relief requires a clear and indisputable entitlement and clear error by the district court.
- Diversity jurisdiction and removability are evaluated at the time of removal; later events do not retroactively defeat jurisdiction when complete diversity continues.
- The forum-defendant limitation in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) restricts removal based on the presence of an in-state defendant at the time of removal; it does not compel remand solely because a forum-state defendant is added after removal if that defendant is still diverse from the plaintiff.
- Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is not required where subject-matter jurisdiction continues to exist after post-removal joinder.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit refused to compel remand by mandamus, concluding that the district court was not required to abstain based on the asserted bankruptcy order and that adding a California defendant after removal did not defeat diversity jurisdiction because complete diversity remained.


Spencer v. U.S. District Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 393 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2004)