Guerrero-Vasquez v. Gill

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 FRANCISCO JAVIER GUERRERO- No. 2:23-cv-01206-AC VASQUEZ, [12] Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. [14] MANPREET SINGH GILL, an 15 individual; HARBOR TRUCKING LTD, A PRIVATE LIMITED 16 COMPANY and DOES 1 to 110, inclusive, [17] Defendants. [19] 20 This action is proceeding before the Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to the 21 parties’ consent. ECF No. 7. Defendant removed this case from state court on June 22, 2023. 22 ECF No. 1. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that the removal was procedurally defective 23 because it was untimely. ECF No. 10. Defendant opposes the motion. ECF No. 13. For the 24 reasons set forth below the court GRANTS the motion to remand. 25 I. Relevant Background 26 This case was initially filed on February 9, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, 27 County of Sacramento, and was served on defendant on April 7, 2023. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. The 28 complaint alleges personal injury related to a motor vehicle accident. Id. at 3. The complaint 1 checks the box invoking the Superior Court’s unlimited jurisdiction for a case exceeding $25,000 2 in damages. Id. Defendant Harbor Trucking was served with the summons and complaint on 3 March 16, 2023, and defendant Gill was served on March 30, 2023. Declaration of Jacob Gould, 4 ¶¶ 3-4. Defendants filed an answer in Superior Court on June 21, 2023. ECF No. 1 Defendant 5 filed a notice of removal and removed this case on June 22, 2023. ECF No. 1. Filed with the 6 notice of removal were “Statement of Damages” documents directed to defendants dated 7 February 28, 2023, alleging a total of six-million dollars in damages against each defendant. ECF 8 Nos. 1-6; 1-7. Plaintiff now moves to remand, arguing that removal was procedurally improper 9 because it was untimely. 10 II. Legal Standard 11 “Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., [12] 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove any civil action from state court when the 13 federal district court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). A federal court has original 14 jurisdiction in cases in which the amount in controversy “exceeds the sum value of $75,000, 15 exclusive of interest and costs,” and in which the parties are diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). The 16 statute governing removal of civil actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , “is strictly construed, and any doubt 17 about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand. The presumption against 18 removal means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” 19 Moore–Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations 20 omitted). 21 The procedures governing removal of civil actions are specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1446 . 22 That statute provides two 30-day periods for removal: (1) 30 days running from when the 23 defendant receives a copy of the initial pleading, 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(1), or (2) “if the case stated 24 by the initial pleading is not removable,” 30 days running from the time the defendant receives 25 “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained” that 26 the case is removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)(3). In Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 27 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit addressed calculation of the thirty-day removal period 28 in situations where it is unclear from the complaint whether the case is removable. There, the 1 court “considered and rejected the proposition that a defendant has a duty to investigate—in its 2 own records or otherwise—a basis for removal when the pleading does not disclose one on its 3 face.” Id. “It also rejected the suggestion that the defendant’s subjective knowledge or a ‘clue’ in 4 the complaint might trigger the thirty-day clock.” Id. The Ninth Circuit unequivocally confirmed 5 that “notice of removability under § 1446(b) is determined through the four corners of the 6 applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry.” 7 Harris, 425 F.3d at 694. 8 III. Analysis 9 Plaintiff argues that removal was untimely because, though plaintiff did not allege an 10 amount in controversy in the complaint, defendant knew or should have known that the amount in 11 controversy exceeded the removable threshold based on the causes of action identified and the 12 fact that plaintiff checked a box stating it was invoking the state court’s “unlimited jurisdiction” 13 for an action exceeding the value of $25,000. ECF No. 10 at 4. This theory has been considered 14 and has been consistently rejected by numerous district courts in this circuit. See, e.g., Imery v. 15 Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 8:21-cv-02029-JLS-DFM, 2022 WL 1639591 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 16 2022); Longoria v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-07560-JLS-PVC, 2022 WL 16961482 , at *2 17 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2022); Martinez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:23-cv-02788-JLS-AGR, 2023 WL 18 3775174, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2023); Cuevas v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 22-1520-DMG 19 (MAAx), 2022 WL 1487178 , at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2022); Holdings v. Ford Motor Co., No. 20 5:21-cv-02172-SVW-SHK, 2022 WL 2235815 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2022); Tirado-Lizarraga 21 v. Ford Motor Co., No. 23-CV-01411-RS, 2023 WL 3868377 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2023); 22 Moran v. Ford Motor Co., No. 23CV845 JM (BLM), 2023 WL 4532755 , at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 13, 23 2023); Hayer v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 220CV01964MCEJDP, 2021 WL 809388 , at *3 24 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021). 25 However, while plaintiff’s initial argument fails, the facts presented here demonstrate that 26 removal was nonetheless procedurally defective. Defendants assert in opposition to the motion to 27 remand that they were first made aware of the amount in controversy when the “statement of 28 damages” was served on them on June 20, 2023, stating that the notice of removal was filed just 1 || two days later. ECF No. 13 at 1. Inreply, plaintiffs counsel submitted a second affidavit stating 2 | that “[o]n March 1, 2023, I caused Karly Vasquez, a legal assistant employed with Barrington 3 || Legal, Inc., to send to our process server for service Plaintiff Francisco Javier Guerrero4 || Vasquez’s Statement of Damages, for Defendant Manpreet Singh Gill and Defendant Harbor 5 || Trucking LTD, along with the Summons, Case Cover Sheet, Complaint, and Case Management 6 || Conference Notice.” Further Declaration of Jacob Gould § 2. Counsel also attached an “email to 7 || the process server by Barrington Legal, Inc.’s legal assistant on March 1, 2023, [noting that] the 8 | Statement of Damages was included and served on Gill and Harbor Trucking, along with the 9 | Summons, Case Cover Sheet, Complaint, and Case Management Conference Notice.” Id. at § 2, 10 | Ex. A. Finally, proofs of service are attached indicating that statements of damages were served 11 || with the summons and complaint on April 4, 2023. Id. at Ex. B. 12 These exhibits establish that defendants received documents including plaintiff’ s 13 || statements of damages no later than April 4, 2023. They removed this case on June 22, 2023. It 14 || is thus clear that defendants’ notice of removal was not filed within 30 days of its receipt of an 15 || “other paper” (statements of damages) from which it could be “ascertained from the face of the 16 || document that removal is proper.” See, Harris, 425 F.3d at 694 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b)). 17 || Accordingly, the court concludes that the removal was procedurally improper and remand is 18 || required. 19 IV. Conclusion 20 For the foregoing reasons, the motion to remand (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. The Clerk 21 || of Court is directed to remand this case to the Superior Court of California and to close this case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || DATED: August 17, 2023 ~ 24 Chttt0n— Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE