2:24-cv-02406
E.D. Cal.
Nov 12, 2024

NICHOLE GLENN v. PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, LLC; PACE ANALYTICAL; PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.; PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES; PACE; and DOES 1 to 100

No. 2:24-cv-02406 WBS AC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 12, 2024

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER RE: MOTION TO REMAND

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Nichole Glenn (“Glenn” or “plaintiff“) alleges that defendant Pace Analytical Services, LLC (“defendant” or “Pace“) violated California state law by discriminating and retaliating against her while it employed her. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant attempted to remove this lawsuit from Sacramento County Superior Court on September 4, 2024. Glenn now moves to remand the case back to the state court. (Docket No. 5.)

Glenn filed suit on July 23, 2024. (Decl. of Cheryl Johnson-Hartwell ¶ 2 (Aug. 29, 2024) (Docket No. 1-1).) Glenn served Pace with the complaint and summons on July 30, 2024. (Decl. of Nicole Ott ¶ 2 (Docket No. 1-4).) On August 30, 2024, Pace attempted to remove the matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“the Central District“). (Decl. of Leticia Espinoza ¶¶ 2-6 (Docket No. 1-7).)

After realizing its mistake, Pace filed a new notice removal in this court on September 4, 2024 (Docket No. 1) and on September 20, 2024 voluntarily dismissed the matter in the Central District. (Decl. of Melanie Rodriguez Ex. B. at 4 (Docket No. 5-4).) Glenn filed her motion to remand in this court on October 4, 2024. (Docket No. 5.)

“Any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by . . . defendant[] to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Removal of such a civil action is done via “[a] notice of removal [which] shall be filed within 30 days” after defendant receives the complaint. Id. § 1446(b)(1). Here, plaintiff‘s motion to remand, filed within thirty days of the filing of the action in this court, is timely.

The thirty-day time limit “is mandatory[,] and a timely objection to a late [notice of removal] will defeat removal.” (per curiam). Moving to remand is “the proper procedure” for objecting to removal. . “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The court must “strictly construe[]” the removal statutes, “and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” . “The presumption against removal means that ‘the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.‘” (quoting ).

After Glenn served the complaint on Pace on July 30, defendant had until August 29 to notice removal in the proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). However, it failed to do so by attempting removal to the wrong court at the eleventh hour and only realizing its mistake after the deadline had passed. See (“[I]f the case were otherwise removable, it should be removed to the proper district and division [in thirty days].“). The court‘s docket shows that defendant instead noticed removal on September 4, 2024, which was too late.

The law of removal contains no exception for good cause or excusable negligence. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446-47. As such, defendant fails to carry its “burden of establishing that removal is proper.” .

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff‘s motion to remand the case back to state court (Docket No. 5) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Sacramento.1

Dated: November 12, 2024

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

1
The motion is decided on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), and the scheduled hearing on the motion is hereby vacated.
Read the detailed case summary