Skyler Bishil v. LBF Travel Inc., 2:22-cv-06059

Plaintiff Skyler Bishil booked airfare through SmartFares (operated by defendants LBF Travel, LBF Travel Management, and Mondee); his reservation was not confirmed but his card was charged $884.57. He requested a refund within the 24-hour cancellation period but did not receive it.
Bishil filed a state-court complaint asserting RICO, California UCL and FAL claims, CLRA, and unjust enrichment.
Process: LBF Travel and Mondee were personally served June 22, 2022; substituted service on LBF Travel Management was effected July 14–15, 2022 (summons left with Linda Taylor, person in charge, and a copy mailed to the authorized agent Michael H. Thomas on July 15).
Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(a), substituted service on a corporate agent is effective when the mailing completes service (deemed complete on the 10th day after mailing).
Service on LBF Travel Management was thus deemed complete July 25, 2022; removal was filed by LBF Travel Management on August 26, 2022—two days after the 30-day removal deadline (Aug. 24).
The Court held substituted service valid for a corporation and found removal untimely, granted Bishil’s motion to remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of substituted service under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20	Service was properly effected by leaving papers with the person in charge and mailing to the authorized agent; effective July 15 (mailing completed July 15)	Substitute service defective for lack of demonstrated "reasonable diligence" in attempting personal service	Substituted service on a corporation under § 415.20(a) is proper without a due‑diligence showing; effective as of July 15, 2022
Timeliness of federal removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)	30‑day removal clock began when substituted service was complete (deemed July 25); removal deadline Aug 24; removal filed Aug 26 → untimely	Removal was timely (alternative arguments regarding notice/exceptions and later acknowledgment of receipt)	Removal was untimely—filed two days after the 30‑day deadline; remand granted

Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2017) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002) (removal requires original federal jurisdiction)
Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (statutory removal time runs from effective service)
United States ex rel. Walker v. Gunn, 511 F.2d 1024 (9th Cir. 1975) (removal deadline is mandatory and strictly construed)
Earl W. Schott, Inc. v. Kalar, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 580 (Ct. App. 1993) (§ 415.20(a) applies to corporations and does not require due diligence)
Hearn v. Howard, 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 (Ct. App. 2009) (statutes governing substituted service are liberally construed to effectuate service)