WG Private Irrevocable Trust v. Marinaj Properties LLC, 5:25-cv-01434

Plaintiffs WG Private Irrevocable Trust and WG Express Trust filed a quiet title action against Marinaj Properties LLC and others in California Superior Court (Riverside) on February 21, 2025.
Defendant Kevin Realworldfare was properly served with the Complaint on February 8, 2025.
Defendant filed a notice of removal to federal court on June 9, 2025, more than 30 days after service.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing the removal occurred outside the 30-day statutory period and sought attorney fees.
The district court considered the timeliness of removal and whether fees should be awarded but did not reach other substantive arguments about removal jurisdiction.
The court ultimately granted remand, denied attorney fees, denied other pending motions as moot, and vacated the scheduled hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Removal	Removal untimely because notice filed after 30 days	Plaintiffs' motion should be denied for lack of proper declaration	Removal was untimely, remand granted
Removability under §1331	No federal private right of action, not removable	N/A (Court did not reach this)	Not decided (court remanded on timing)
Attorney Fees on Remand	Fees warranted due to improper removal	N/A	Fees denied
Effect of Other Pending Motions	N/A	N/A	Denied as moot

Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2009) (articulates strong presumption against removal, burden on defendant)
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strictly construes removal statute, doubts resolved in favor of remand)
Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1980) (thirty-day limit is mandatory, can defeat removal with timely objection)
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (fees should be awarded on remand only if no objectively reasonable basis for removal)