Megan Bales, et al. v. Amrinder Mahal, et al.

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR — 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 7 — WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MEGAN BALES, et al., CASE NO. C25-1985-JCC — 10 — Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 AMRINDER MAHAL, et al., 13 Defendants. — 14 — — 15 — 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. No. 8). Having 17 thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS the motion for 18 the reasons explained herein. 19 Plaintiffs sued Defendants Amrinder Mahal and Bulls Transport Canada Ltd. in King 20 County Superior Court following a traffic accident, asserting claims under state law. (See Dkt. 21 No. 6-2.) Defendant Amrinder Mahal removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction, which 22 Defendant Bulls Transport joined. (See Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiffs contend that the removal was 23 untimely. (See generally Dkt. No. 8.) Thus, they move to remand. (Id.) 24 Disposition of Plaintiffs’ motion turns on issue(s) of proof as to the time of service. 25 Plaintiffs present a notarized affidavit that Mr. Mahal was personally served on August 20, 2025. 26 (Id. at 7.) Whereas Defendants (who collectively oppose remand) provide the Court with a 1 declaration from Mr. Mahal, along with supporting exhibits, professing that Mr. Mahal did not 2 reside at the residence where service purportedly occurred and that he only later learned of this 3 suit weeks later from an individual that was living at the residence at the time of purported 4 service. (Dkt. No. 10.) If true, Mr. Mahal’s removal would be timely. Otherwise, it would not. 5 On issues of service (and accordingly proof), this Court looks to Washington law. See 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); see, e.g., Russell v. WADOT Capital, Inc., 2023 WL 3791823 , slip op. at 7 2 (W.D. Wash. 2023). It provides that an affidavit of service is presumed valid if regular in its 8 form and substance. State ex rel. Coughlin v. Jenkins, 7 P.3d 818 , 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). 9 Whereas, one contesting service must do so by clear and convincing evidence. Vukich v. 10 Anderson, 985 P.2d 952, 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Here, Plaintiff presents the Court with just 11 such an affidavit. (Dkt. No. 8 at 7.) Thus, Defendants must offer clear and convincing 12 countervailing evidence. They fail to do so. Their self-serving affidavit, (see Dkt. No. 10), is 13 insufficient. See, e.g., State ex rel. Coughlin, 7 P.3d at 821; Saxon Mortg. Services, Inc. v. 14 Hillery, 2008 WL 5170180 , slip op. at 3 (N.D. Cal. 2008). 15 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for remand (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED. The Clerk is 16 DIRECTED to remand this case to King County Superior Court. — 17 — 18 DATED this 19th day of December 2025. A — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — John C. Coughenour 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 —