Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02339/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02339-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA ALLEXHOLLAND,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPITAL ALLIANCE INSTITUTIONAL

MORTGAGE FUND, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 10-2339 CRB

ORDER REMANDING TO STATE

COURT

Defendant U.S. Bank removed this case from state court on May 27, 2010. Plaintiff

now moves to remand. Because argument would not aid the Court in deciding this motion,

the hearing currently scheduled for August 6 has been VACATED. For the reasons that

follow, this case is REMANDED to state court.

The original complaint was filed in state court on April 16, 2009, and a first amended

complaint was filed on April 30, 2010. Defendant sought to remove the case to federal court

the next month, arguing that the complaint raised a federal question. Plaintiff explains that

even if there were a federal question in this case—which she disputes—that federal question

was apparent in the original complaint, filed on April 16, 2009. Therefore, Defendant’s

removal in May of 2010 occurred long after the 30-day window for removal closed. See 28

U.S.C. § 1446(b) (providing that removal “shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt

Case 3:10-cv-02339-CRB Document 22 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2010\2339\Order.wpd 2

by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth

the claim for relief”). 

Indeed, Defendant asserts as grounds for removal the fact that Plaintiff’s complaint

“arises under the Truth in Lending Act,” which gives rise to federal question jurisdiction. 

See Dkt. #1 ,¶ 1. While this is debatable (the complaint mentions TILA, but does not assert a

claim that specifically relies on TILA), the fact remains that the first complaint contains a

nearly identical reference to TILA. Compare Holland Decl., ex. 1, ¶ 16 (original complaint),

and ex. 2, ¶ 16 (amended complaint). If one assumes that Defendant is correct that the

amended complaint is removable on federal question grounds, then the original complaint

must have been similarly removable. Therefore, because Defendant never sought to remove

the original complaint within the statutory 30-day window, it has waived its opportunity. 

Removal is therefore improper and this case is REMANDED to state court.

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. While removal is improper, Plaintiff fails

to justify an award of sanctions. Cf. Britton v. Rolls Royce Engine Servs., No. 05-1057,

2005 WL 1562855 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2005).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-02339-CRB Document 22 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2