Parker R. Herriott v. Sanofi-Aventis U.s. LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARKER R. HERRIOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56913
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-09181-JAK-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Parker R. Herriott appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his product liability and medical malpractice action and denying his motion to
remand to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo subject matter jurisdiction and denials of motions to remand. Ritchey v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Dr. Kneisley was fraudulently
joined because the claims against Dr. Kneisley were barred by the statute of
limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.5 (statute of limitations for a California
medical malpractice claim is “three years after the date of injury or one year after
the plaintiff discovers … the injury, whichever occurs first.”); Drexler v. Petersen,
209 Cal. Rptr.3d 332, 340 (Ct. App. 2016) (when a patient experiences appreciable
harm, that appreciable harm will start the limitations period); Grancare, LLC v.
Thrower by & through Mills, 889 F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We have upheld
rulings of fraudulent joinder where a defendant demonstrates that a plaintiff is
barred by the statute of limitations from bringing claims against that defendant.”).
Because Dr. Kneisley was fraudulently joined, the district court properly dismissed
the claims against him, and because the remaining parties were diverse, the district
court properly denied Herriott’s motion to remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
The request of Defendant Sanofi-Aventis to be removed from the electronic
service list (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --