Connor v. Bart Guerrero Trucking, 2:19-cv-00897

On Oct. 3, 2018, Georgia resident Landry Connor was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler owned and operated by Bart Guerrero Trucking, a Washington sole proprietorship whose owner resides in Auburn, WA.
Connor filed suit in King County Superior Court on Dec. 3, 2018 seeking damages for the collision.
Guerrero removed the case to federal court on June 7, 2019, asserting only diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Connor moved to remand on June 12, 2019, arguing removal was barred by the forum defendant rule (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)) and seeking attorney fees for an objectively unreasonable removal.
Connor objected to removal within days of the notice; the Court found removal improper because Guerrero is a Washington citizen and the case was filed in Washington state court.
The Court granted remand, directed the Clerk to return the case to King County Superior Court, and ordered Guerrero to pay Connor’s reasonable attorney fees (Connor to file a declaration supporting the fee request).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal based solely on diversity was proper despite defendant being a citizen of the forum state (forum defendant rule)	Removal barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) because Guerrero is a Washington citizen and the suit was filed in Washington	Removal is permissible under Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., because forum-defendant objection is waivable if not timely raised	Held: Removal improper. Connor timely objected within § 1447(c) period, so § 1441(b)(2) bars removal
Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees for improper removal	Fees warranted because removal was objectively unreasonable and forced unnecessary motion practice	Removal was reasonable under Lively; fees not warranted	Held: Fees awarded. Court found removal objectively unreasonable because Lively did not apply given timely objection

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (removing party bears burden to show removal was proper)
Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.) (diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and >$75,000)
Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Ca., 393 F.3d 867 (9th Cir.) (forum defendant rule rationale)
Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir.) (held forum-defendant rule is procedural and waivable absent timely objection)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. Supreme Court) (award of fees on remand requires removal was not objectively reasonable)
Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.) (frivolous removal not objectively reasonable)
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir.) (standard for assessing objective reasonableness of removal)