Amy Roth v. Cha Hollywood Medical Center
720 F.3d 1121
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Roth filed a state-law wage-and-hour class action in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 27, 2011.
- CHA Hollywood Medical Center was added as a defendant on May 24, 2012 via first amended complaint.
- Defendants removed to federal court on September 4, 2012 citing CAFA diversity and amount in controversy.
- District court remanded, ruling removal was improper because no CAFA removability was shown within 30-day periods in §1446(b)(1) or (b)(3).
- Defendants appealed, arguing CAFA diversity supports removal despite no triggering 30-day period in the FAC.
- Issue before the court: whether §1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) are the exclusive windows for removal or merely trigger-time when defendant discovers removability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are §1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) the only removal periods? | Roth argued periods are exclusive authorizations. | CHA argued removal must occur within 30 days after facsimile of initial pleading shows removability. | Not exclusive; defendant may remove based on its own information if deadlines not triggered. |
| May a CAFA removal occur outside the two 30-day windows if based on defendant’s own discovery? | Indeterminate FAC may delay removal; plaintiffs should trigger 30-day window. | Defendant may investigate and remove when removable, even outside 30-day periods. | Yes; §1441 and §1446 permit removal based on defendant’s own information after not triggering §1446(b)(1)/(b)(3). |
| Does defendant lose the right to remove if it learns removability by its own investigation? | Right could be lost unless plaintiff provides removable information within 30 days. | Discovery by defendant preserves removal right so long as it’s timely once discovered. | No; defendant may remove after discovery, provided no §1446 deadlines were triggered. |
| Did the FAC provide sufficient indication of removability in this case? | FAC was indeterminate about diversity and amount in controversy. | Defendant identified Nevada citizenship and over $5,000,000 via its own evidence after FAC. | FAC was indeterminate; removal possible after defendant’s independent investigation. |
| Is remand proper given CAFA local controversy exception potential applicability? | Case might fit local controversy exception under §1332(d)(4)(A). | Removal appropriate if CAFA jurisdiction can be shown after investigation. | Remand is reversed and the case is remanded for further CAFA consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (no duty to inquire when initial pleading is indeterminate)
- S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 1996) (affidavit by defendant cannot start removable period; ‘other paper’ rule discussed)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for appellate review of remand orders)
- Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (CAFA timing considerations; appellate timeline)