MARLEY CASTRO and LUCIA MARMOLEJO v. Abm Industries Incorporated;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLEY CASTRO and LUCIA
MARMOLEJO,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 15-16627
D.C. No. 4:14-cv-05359-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 15, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
ABM appeals the district court’s remand of this suit to California state court.
The district court evaluated Castro’s motion to remand on the basis of the
FILED
SEP 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

complaint Castro originally filed in state court, rather than on the basis of the
amended complaint Castro filed in federal court.
ABM petitioned for permission to appeal based on the question whether the
district court considered the correct complaint. Because ABM removed this case a
second time after appealing the first remand order, the district court is currently
reviewing Castro’s motion to remand on the basis of the amended complaint.
This appeal is moot.
ABM did not challenge or brief on appeal the complex amount-in-
controversy issue regarding the original complaint. So this Court cannot evaluate
ABM’s assertion that the non-PAGA claims, standing alone, would satisfy
CAFA’s jurisdictional threshold. See Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of Univ. of
Cal. v. Wu, 626 F.3d 483, 487-88 (9th Cir. 2010). The only relief this Court could
order, therefore, would be a remand to the district court to consider Castro’s
motion to remand on the basis of the amended complaint. But the district court is
already considering exactly the same issue after the second removal. Any decision
we might issue as to whether it should have done so earlier could have no impact
on the ultimate question whether this case proceeds in state or federal court. See
Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a claim became
moot when lower court undertook the very action sought, as an order by the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

appellate court “to do something faster” could at that point have no effect). Where
resolution of a question “cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before” an
Article III court, the court “loses its power to render a decision on the merits of
[the] claim.” Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir.
2014).
The mootness exception for cases “capable of repetition yet evading review”
does not apply because this controversy is not “of inherently limited duration.”
Protectmarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen, 752 F.3d 827, 836 (9th Cir. 2014). The
issue ABM raises regarding which complaint to consider where a complaint is
amended after removal can well arise in contexts allowing for review of the
question without mootness concerns. That happened just recently in Benko v.
Quality Loan Service Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2015). Because no
mootness exception applies, dismissal is proper. See W. Coast Seafood Processors
Ass’n v. NRDC, 643 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2011).
This appeal is therefore dismissed.
3

-- 3 of 3 --