United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States
District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings
(In Chambers): Order GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to
remand
Before
the Court is Plaintiff John Entwistle's
(“Plaintiff”) motion to remand. See Dkt. # 8
(“Mot.”). Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
(“Defendant”) has opposed this motion. See Dkt. #
15 (“Opp.”). Plaintiff did not file a reply. The
Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral
argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered
the moving papers, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I.
Background
On
April 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed this case in Los Angeles
Superior Court, asserting claims against Defendant for
negligence and premises liability. See Complaint, Dkt. # 1-1
(“Compl.”). Plaintiff attached a statement of
damages to the complaint, which stated that Plaintiff sought
more than $5 million in general damages and almost $70, 000
in special damages. See First Statement of Damages, Dkt. #
8-3 (“First SOD”); Proof of Service, Dkt. # 8-2,
at 1.
On May
14, 2019, Defendant was served with the summons, complaint,
the statement of damages, and other documents. See Notice of
Removal, Dkt. # 1 (“NOR”), ¶¶ 2; Proof
of Service at 1. Defendant filed an answer and produced
initial discovery shortly after. See Opp. 2:23-24. In June
2019, Defendant served a request for a statement of damages
and a set of special interrogatories requesting information
on Plaintiff's citizenship. See Id. 2:25-28. On
August 14, 2019, Plaintiff provided Defendant with his set of
special interrogatory responses “wherein he admitted
that he is a citizen of California.” Opp. 3:1;
Defendant's Special Interrogatories, Dkt. # 8-7, No. 21;
Plaintiff's Responses to Defendant's Special
Interrogatories, Dkt. # 8-8 (“Pl's Special
Interrogatory Resp”), No. 21. On September 19, 2019,
Plaintiff served another statement of damages on Defendant,
again asserting over $5 million in general damages and ORDER
including an itemized list of special damages. See
Declaration of Silvia Luna, Dkt. # 15-1 (“Luna
Decl.”), Ex. F.
On
October 11, 2019, Defendant removed the case to this Court.
See NOR. On October 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed this
motion to remand, arguing that the removal was untimely.
See generally Mot.
II.
Legal Standard
Defendants
may generally remove any case filed in state court over which
the federal district courts have original jurisdiction.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). To remove a case, the
defendant must file a notice of removal in federal court.
Id. § 1446(a). The notice of removal must be
filed either (1) within thirty days after the defendant
receives the initial pleading or (2) “if the
case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, ”
within thirty days after the defendant receives “a copy
of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from
which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which
is or has become removable.” Id. §
1446(b)(2)(A)-(3); see also Harris v. Bankers Life &
Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2005).
The
thirty-day clock begins running when the defendant is served
with the initial complaint when “the case stated by the
initial pleading is removable on its face.”
Harris, 425 F.3d at 694. In other words, the
“ground for removal must be revealed affirmatively in
the initial pleading in order for the first thirty-day clock
. . . to begin.” Id. at 695. If the case as
stated by the initial complaint is not removable on its face,
the thirty-day clock does not begin to run until the
defendant receives “an amended pleading, motion, order
or other paper” from which it may first be ascertained
that the case is removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3);
Harris, 425 F.3d at 697 (“Once defendant is on
notice of removability, the thirty-day period begins to
run.”).
III.
Discussion
A.
Motion to Remand
In
removing this case, Defendant invoked the Court's
diversity jurisdiction, which applies when the plaintiff and
defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. NOR ¶¶ 6-12;
see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). There is no dispute
that these requirements are met in this case. An individual
party is a citizen of the state in which he is domiciled-that
is, the state where he “resides with the intention to
remain” or where he “intends to return.”
Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th
Cir. 2001). Because Plaintiff lives in California and does
not intend to move, he is domiciled in the state. See
generally Pl's Special Interrogatory Resp. A
corporation is a citizen of its state(s) of incorporation and
the state where it has its principal place of business. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(c). Defendant is incorporated in Delaware
and has its principal place of business in Arkansas, so it is
a citizen of Delaware and Arkansas. See NOR ¶
9. The parties are therefore completely diverse.
Additionally, for purposes of jurisdiction, Defendant does
not dispute Plaintiff's second statement of damages,
which places more than $75, 000 in controversy.
The
only issue presented by Plaintiff's motion to remand is
whether Defendant's removal was untimely. See
generally Mot. Defendant removed the case within thirty
days of Plaintiff's serving a second statement of damages
on Defendant. See NOR. The question is whether
Defendant was on notice of ...