Gabrielle Lawton v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., 8:23-cv-01797

Plaintiff Gabrielle Lawton filed a state-court complaint (negligence, strict product liability, breach of implied warranty) on Sept. 15, 2023 in Orange County Superior Court.
Superior Court did not issue a summons until Sept. 28, 2023; Hyundai was served on Sept. 29, 2023.
Hyundai removed the action to federal court on Sept. 20, 2023 under diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332), asserting complete diversity and amount in controversy.
Lawton moved to remand, arguing removal was premature/defective and invoking the forum-defendant rule (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)).
Hyundai argued the forum-defendant exception does not apply because it had not been "properly joined and served" when it removed the case.
The district court held the statutory phrase "properly joined and served" is unambiguous, declined to rewrite the statute to avoid perceived gamesmanship, and denied remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the forum-defendant rule bars removal when the forum defendant was not yet served at the time of removal	Lawton: removal was premature/defective; forum-defendant rule should block removal and/or plaintiff lacked meaningful opportunity to serve	Hyundai: §1441(b)(2) applies only if a forum defendant is "properly joined and served," so pre-service removal is permissible	Court: Held the statute is unambiguous; because Hyundai removed before being "properly joined and served," the forum-defendant exception did not bar removal; remand denied
Whether courts may depart from §1441(b)(2)’s plain text to prevent "snap removal" or absurd results	Lawton: courts should avoid literal reading to prevent gamesmanship and ensure a reasonable opportunity to serve	Hyundai: courts must enforce statutory text; policy objections are for Congress to address	Court: Declined to depart from plain text; refused to create a judicial exception for gamesmanship and urged Congress to amend if desired

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (establishes removal requires original jurisdiction)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal statute is strictly construed against removal)
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (complete diversity requires each defendant be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff)
Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (plain statutory text must be enforced)
Dechow v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 358 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (adheres to plain-text reading of "properly joined and served")
Spencer v. United States Dist. Court, 393 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2004) (removal inquiry looks to circumstances at time notice of removal filed)
Guo Xi v. INS, 298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts should not rewrite statutes; statutory revisions are for Congress)