Sandra Blount v. City of Los Angeles, 2:13-cv-01402

Plaintiff Sandra Blount filed a California state court complaint on October 28, 2011 alleging negligence, assault and battery, and civil rights violations under Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1.
City of Los Angeles removed the action to this court on February 26, 2013, asserting removability based on a Superior Court Minute Order dated February 19, 2013 that first delineated federal causes of action.
Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 has a 30-day clock that starts when the case is removable on its face or when a paper making removability ascertainable is received.
The court analyzes whether the Superior Court Order qualifies as an “other paper” that triggers the 30-day removal period and concludes it does not.
The court determines the removal was untimely, as it was filed more than 15 months after the initial complaint, and thus insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.
Consequently, the action is remanded to state court, and Blount’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 11) is vacated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal under §1446	Blount argues the Superior Court Order is not 'other paper' and removal is untimely.	City contends the order reveals removability and triggers the 30-day period.	Removal untimely; remand proper.

Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (removal timing based on when removability is ascertainable)
Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2009) (strictly construed removal; resolve doubt in favor of remand)
Riggs v. Continental Baking Co., 678 F. Supp. 236 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (depositions can qualify as 'other paper' under some circumstances)