Sean P. Harper v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 8:18-cv-01564

Plaintiff Sean P. Harper filed an employment discrimination action in California state court on July 9, 2018 against Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.
On July 17, 2018 Harper mailed the summons, complaint, and a notice and acknowledgment of receipt to Defendant’s counsel under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30.
Defendant’s counsel signed, dated, and returned the acknowledgment form on August 6, 2018.
Defendant removed the case to federal court on August 29, 2018 based on diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely; the sole dispute was when formal service occurred and thus when the 30-day removal clock began.
The district court considered whether California’s § 415.30 service is complete on mailing or on execution/return of the acknowledgment form.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When is service complete under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.30 for purposes of triggering the 30-day removal period?	Receipt of the initial pleadings (specifically July 19–20) triggered the removal period.	Service is complete only when the recipient executes and returns the written acknowledgment; here executed Aug. 6, 2018.	Service occurred on execution/return of the acknowledgment (Aug. 6, 2018); removal on Aug. 29, 2018 was timely.

Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (formal service, not mere receipt, triggers the removal period)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal courts may hear removed state actions when they have original jurisdiction)
Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (removal jurisdiction strictly construed; defendant bears burden to show removal is proper)
Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (removal jurisdiction analyzed with caution and against removal)