Guerrero-Vasquez v. Gill
2:23-cv-01206-AC
| E.D. Cal. | Aug 18, 2023Background:
- Complaint filed Feb 9, 2023 in Sacramento County Superior Court alleging personal injuries and invoking the state court’s "unlimited jurisdiction."
- Plaintiff prepared Statements of Damages (dated Feb 28, 2023) alleging $6,000,000 against each defendant.
- Proofs and counsel affidavit show the Statements of Damages were sent to/process-served with the summons and complaint by no later than April 4, 2023.
- Defendants answered in state court on June 21, 2023 and filed a notice of removal to federal court on June 22, 2023.
- Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing removal was procedurally untimely; defendants argued they only received the Statements of Damages on June 20, 2023.
- The court concluded defendants received the Statements of Damages by April 4, 2023, so the June 22 removal was outside the 30-day window and remanded the case.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a complaint that checks the box invoking "unlimited jurisdiction" or the nature of the claims alone starts the §1446(b) 30-day removal clock | The checked box and pleaded causes of action put Gill on notice that the amount in controversy exceeded the federal diversity threshold | A pleading that does not state an amount does not trigger the 30-day clock; defendants have no duty to investigate beyond the four corners of the pleading | Rejected plaintiff's theory; removability is determined from the face of the pleading (following Harris) not from defendants’ subjective knowledge |
| Whether the plaintiff’s Statements of Damages served with the complaint constituted an "other paper" under §1446(b)(3) that started the 30-day removal period | Statements of Damages were served by April 4, 2023, so removal on June 22, 2023 was untimely | Defendants contend they first received the Statements of Damages on June 20, 2023 and removed within 30 days | Court credited plaintiff’s service evidence, found the Statements of Damages were received by April 4, 2023, concluded removal was untimely, and ordered remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (recognizing federal courts’ limited jurisdiction)
- Moore–Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (removal presumption against defendants; defendant bears burden to show removal proper)
- Harris v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689 (notice of removability is determined from the four corners of the pleadings, not a defendant’s subjective knowledge)