Lindquist v. Target Corporation, 4:19-cv-08029

Clare Lindquist filed a negligence/premises-liability complaint in Marin County Superior Court on November 8, 2018; she was served November 14, 2018.
Target served a California Civil Code § 425.11 request for a statement of damages on December 27, 2018; Lindquist objected on January 9, 2019.
Target contends Lindquist first disclosed a $360,000 settlement demand (indicating > $75,000 in controversy) on November 21, 2019.
Target removed the case to federal court on December 9, 2019, more than one year after commencement.
Lindquist moved to remand as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1); Target argued the bad-faith exception applied because Lindquist allegedly concealed the amount in controversy.
The district court remanded the action to state court, finding Target failed to show Lindquist acted in bad faith; each party bears its own costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness under the one-year removal rule (28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1))	Lindquist: Removal barred because Target removed >1 year after filing	Target: Lindquist concealed damages; only disclosed amount in Nov. 2019, so bad-faith exception applies	Remand. Target failed to prove plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal
30-day removal clock after notice of removability	Lindquist: Even if one-year exception applied, Target also missed the 30-day window	Target: Removal was timely after notice (November demand)	Court did not reach this argument (declined to decide)

Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) ("commencement" for the one-year removal rule means when the action was initiated under state procedures)
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears the burden to establish federal jurisdiction and to prove plaintiff acted in bad faith)