Cluster 755238 (1998)

See Parrino v. FHP, 9 Inc. 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (superseded by statute on 10 other grounds) (courts may take judicial notice of “documents 11 crucial to the plaintiff’s claims, but not explicitly 12 incorporated in his complaint”).

See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“a procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court”).

See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“a procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court”).

Section 1453(b) exempts qualifying actions from the § 1446(b) prohibition of removal “more than 1 year after commencement of the [state court] action,”7 and overrides the judge-created requirement that each defendant consent to removal, see Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that “[t]he case was improperly removed because not all defendants consented to the removal” as required by § 1446); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699,…

Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.... ”).

Id., but see 8 Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703 (“[A] procedural defect existing at the time of removal but cured prior to 9 entry of judgment does not warrant reversal and remand of the matter to state court”); Destfino, 10 630 F.3d at 956-57 (noting that if all defendants who have been served have not joined in removal, 11 “the district court may allow the removing defendants to cure the defect by obtaining joinder of all 12 defendants prior to the entry of judgment”); Kacludis v.…

Id. at 702.

Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705 (9th Cir. 1998). 13 EVIG argues the following combination of elements establish Balance of Nature’s 14 protectable trade dress: (1) the name Balance of Nature with (2) the “a” in “Nature” replaced by 15 a leaf image, located (3) in the top-center of the bottle and (4) followed by the term “Whole 16 Produce” and (5) either “Fruits” or “Veggies” (6) with “distinctive” fonts (7) and yellow lettering 17 used; (8) a layout of fruits or vege…

“The doctrine prevents plaintiffs from 5 selecting only portions of documents that support their claims, while omitting portions of 6 those very documents that weaken–or doom–their claims.” Khoja, 899 F.3d at 1002 (citing 7 Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998)).

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”).

Co., 443 F.3d 676 , 681–82 (9th Cir. 2006)) (“The Ninth Circuit has noted 24 that there is a ‘policy concern underlying the rule: Preventing plaintiffs from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) 25 motion by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which their claims are based.’”); Parrino, 146 F.3d at 706 (“[A] district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document the 26 authenticity of which is not contested, and upon which the plaintiff’s complaint necessaril…

First, Destfino relies, for this cure-before-judgment proposition, on Soliman v. Philip Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2002), which in turn relies upon Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998).

A document “may be incorporated by reference into a complaint if the plaintiff refers extensively to the document or the document forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claim[,]” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003), and “the authenticity of [the document] is not contested[,]” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998). “[T]he mere mention of the existence of a document is insufficient to incorporate the contents of…

Cal. 2016) (taking judicial notice of CBAs 27 where necessary to resolve issues of preemption on a motion to dismiss); Parrino v. 28 FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Because complete preemption often 1 applies to complaints drawn to evade federal jurisdiction, a federal court may look 2 beyond the face of the complaint to determine whether the claims alleged as state law 3 causes of action in fact are necessarily federal claims.”). 4 The Court takes judicial no…

The Destfino court cited to Soliman v. Philip 18 Morris Inc., 311 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2002), as the basis for the proposition quoted 19 above, and Soliman in turn cited to Parrino v FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998). 20 However, in Parrino, the court explained that this rule applied only to the “Court of 21 Appeals” and that district courts are not authorized to “ignore the procedural requirements 22 for removal.” Parrino, 146 F.3d at 703 n.1; see also Soliman…

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 56667 (9th Cir. 1992). “[A]ll defendants must join a notice of removal . . . and a proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff’s complaint.” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th CUENNTITREADL S DTIASTTERSIC DTI SOTFR CICATL ICFOOURRNTIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-08671-RGK-SSC Date November 6, 2025 Title Z Development, et al v. General Motors LLC pleading, motion, order or other paper…

To reverse judgment and remand the case 12 to state court “would impose an exorbitant cost on our dual court system, a cost 13 incompatible with the fair and unprotracted administration of justice.” Parrino v. FHP, 14 Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998) (quoting Caterpillar 15 Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 77 (1996)).

Id. (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 14 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998)). 15 Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant[ ] Hercules … owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty” and 16 that it “acted on Plaintiffs’ behalf in connection with the transport of Plaintiffs’ personal 17 property from California to Texas.” (FAC ¶¶ 96–97.) As such, the FAC necessarily relies 18 on the document containing Hercules’ terms and conditions to assert a fiduciary 19 relationship between Hercules and Plaintiff…

Although generally “a proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff's complaint,” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)), the thirty-day period for removal is not triggered if an initial pleading is not removable on its face.

“The doctrine prevents plaintiffs 20 from selecting only portions of documents that support their claims, while omitting portions of 21 those very documents that weaken – or doom – their claims.” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, 22 Inc., 899 F.3d 998 , 1002 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 23 1 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. 2 Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681-82 (9th Cir. 2006)). 3 “[T]h…

Although generally “a proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff's complaint,” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)), the thirty-day period for removal is not triggered if an initial pleading is not removable on its face.

Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego v. Dow Chem.

Although generally “a proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff's complaint,” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)), the thirty-day period for removal is not triggered if an initial pleading is not removable on its face.

One exception to this rule is the incorporation-by- 15 reference doctrine, which “treats certain documents as though they are part of the complaint 16 itself.” Id. (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute 17 on other grounds as recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.

Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.

However, “[i]n 12 order to ‘prevent plaintiff’s from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting 13 documents upon which their claims are based,’ a court may consider a writing referenced in a 14 complaint but not explicitly incorporated therein if the complaint relies on the document and its 15 authenticity is unquestioned.” See id. (quoting Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 16 1998)).

Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998): see also Caruso v. Seabring Marine Indus., Inc., No. 2:24-CV-00861-MCS-E, 2024 WL 3464172 , at *1,n.2 (C.D.

Cal. June 21, 2021) (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th 4 Cir. 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998)). 5 The Court sua sponte incorporates by reference a copy of the offer letters provided to 6 Ortega and Rocha, as well as a copy of the arbitration agreements.

Littlejohn cannot “deliberately omit[] references to documents upon which their claims are based.” Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 22 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998).

The incorporation-by-reference doctrine is a judicial creation that “treats certain documents as though they are part of the complaint itself” and “prevents plaintiffs from selecting only portions of documents that support their claims, while omitting portions of those very documents that weaken—or doom—their claims.” Id. at 1002 (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.

These procedures include a requirement that the “notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 24-5177 PA (MARx) Date July 3, 2024 Title Eugenia McLaurin v. CVS Ph…

Where, however, an attached document is integral to the plaintiff’s claims and its authenticity 7 is not disputed, the plaintiff obviously is on notice of the contents 8 of the document and the need for a chance to refute evidence is greatly diminished. 9 10 Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended (July 28, 1998) 11 (citations omitted) accord Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006) (“A court 12 may consider evidence on which the complai…

One exception to this rule is the doctrine of incorporation by reference, which 14 “treats certain documents as though they are part of the complaint itself.” Id. (citing Parrino v. 15 FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as 16 recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.

This also prevents “plaintiffs PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting reference to documents upon which their claims are based.” Id. (quoting Parrino v. FHP Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998).

Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.

Discussion Defendant alleges that the Notice of Removal is timely because it was filed within 30 days of its receipt of Plaintiffs’ amended responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, in which Plaintiffs first admitted that they were citizens of California. “[A] proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff's complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998).

Cal. 2014) (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Because complete preemption often applies to complaints drawn to evade federal jurisdiction, a federal court may look beyond the face of the complaint to determine whether the claims alleged as state law causes of action in fact are necessarily federal claims.”)).1 III.

Cal. 2014) (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Because complete preemption often applies to complaints drawn to evade federal jurisdiction, a federal court may look beyond the face of the complaint to determine whether the claims alleged as state law causes of action in fact are necessarily federal claims.”).1 B.

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”).

At this stage, an outside document can only be considered when it is “integral to and explicitly relied on” in the complaint and “the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity.” Philips v. LCI Intern, Inc., 190 F.3d 609 , 618 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Parrino v. FHP, INC., 146 F.3d 699, 705-06 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which …

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”).

Otherwise, a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss merely by failing to attach a dispositive document on which it relied”) (citations omitted); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document the authenticity of which is not contested, and upon which the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies”) (citing Cortec, 949 F.2d at 47).

See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“plaintiffs [cannot] surviv[e] a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting references to documents upon which their claims are based”), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego v. Dow Chem.

To remove an action from state to federal court, a defendant must file a notice of removal “within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(1); see also Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff's complain…

To remove an action from state to federal court, a defendant must file a notice of removal “within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(1); see also Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the plaintiff’s complain…

These procedures include a requirement that the “notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(1); see also Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] proper removal notice must be filed within 30 days of service of the pl…

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”).

Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006); Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 703 (9th Cir. 1998) (“All defendants must join a notice of removal.”).

See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705-06 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document the authenticity of which is not contested, and upon which the plaintiffs complaint necessarily relies”) (citing Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994)), superseded on other grounds by statute; see id. at 706 n.4.

See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (“a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document the authenticity of which is not contested, and upon which the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies”).