Manuel Gonzalez v. Connie Lightcap, 5:18-cv-01236

Plaintiff Manuel Gonzalez filed a summons and complaint in San Bernardino Superior Court on April 27, 2018.
Plaintiff’s counsel emailed a courtesy copy of the complaint and a request that defense counsel sign a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt on April 30, 2018; Marca (defense counsel) did not respond until May 9, 2018 and did not sign the acknowledgment until May 31, 2018.
Plaintiff personally served Defendant Connie Lightcap on May 9, 2018.
Defendants propounded discovery in state court (May 18, 2018) before filing a notice of removal to federal court on June 8, 2018.
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely because the 30-day removal window began on April 30 (the date the email was sent); Defendants argued removal was timely because formal service occurred May 9.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal — when did 30-day clock start?	Removal window began April 30 when counsel emailed complaint to Marca.	Clock began May 9 when Connie Lightcap was personally served; email was not formal service.	Held: Clock began May 9 (formal service); removal filed June 8 was timely.
Whether email to defense counsel constituted effective service under CA law	Email transmission of complaint constituted service under Cal. Code Civ. P. §416.90 (and thus started the clock).	Email was not an authorized method under §413.10; no evidence of effective service before May 9 or May 31 acknowledgment.	Held: Email alone did not establish effective service; court relied on formal personal service date.
Whether defendants waived right to remove by engaging in state-court discovery	Serving extensive discovery showed clear and unequivocal intent to litigate in state court, so waiver.	Serving discovery and other pre-removal steps do not equal waiver unless there is adjudication on the merits or clear intent to remain in state court.	Held: No waiver; discovery before removal did not constitute clear and unequivocal waiver.
Burden of proof on service effectiveness	Plaintiff met burden to show service effective as of April 30.	Plaintiff bore burden but failed to prove effective service occurred before May 9.	Held: Plaintiff failed to prove earlier effective service; service deemed effective May 9.

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (formal service is necessary to trigger 30-day removal clock)
Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Bayside Developers, 43 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir.) (waiver of removal requires clear and unequivocal intent to litigate in state court)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir.) (burden on defendant to establish removal is proper; removal statute construed narrowly)
Dill v. Berquist Constr. Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove effective service when challenged)
Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir.) (removal jurisdiction derived from statute)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal court must have original jurisdiction for removal)