Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00718/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00718-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVONIA X-LITTLEPAGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BERKEL & COMPANY CONTRACTORS, 

INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00718-JD 

ORDER RE REMAND AND COSTS 

AND FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 8

Plaintiff Sylvonia X-Littlepage (“X-Littlepage”) moves to remand this action to California 

state court and seeks related costs and fees. No opposition was filed. The record shows that the 

case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, and remand is ordered. Fees and costs 

are granted. 

BACKGROUND

X-Littlepage filed this action under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act 

(“FEHA”) in the Alameda County Superior Court on April 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A at 3-7; Ex. 

F at 3-9. X-Littlepage served the summons and complaint on defendant Berkel & Company 

Contractors, Inc. (“Berkel”) on January 29, 2016, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. G at 2. On February 11, 2016, 

Berkel removed this action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 15. 

It acknowledged that defendant Darnell McCloud (“McCloud”) is a California resident but 

pursued removal because McCloud had not been served. Id.; Dkt. No. 1, Ex. E at 1. X-Littlepage 

now moves to remand the action back to the state court. Dkt. No. 8. 

Case 3:16-cv-00718-JD Document 9 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

I. Remand

An action filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the federal court 

would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over the action because it raises a federal 

question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or involves diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). As a rule, “removal statutes are strictly construed against removal,” and “any 

doubt is resolved against removability.” Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 

F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The strong presumption against removal 

means that the “defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper.” Id. 

If “the subject matter of an action qualifies [the action] for removal, the burden is on a plaintiff to 

find an express exception.” Serrano v. 180 Connect, Inc., 478 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citing Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691, 698 (2003)).

Removal was not proper in this case. Generally, all defendants in an action must join in a 

petition for removal. United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT &T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 762 (9th Cir. 

2002). Although unserved defendants are an exception to this rule of unanimity, when the basis 

for the removal is diversity jurisdiction, the Court will take into account the citizenship of 

unserved defendants in determining whether complete diversity exists. Clarence E. Morris, Inc. v. 

Vitek, 412 F.2d 1174, 1176 (9th Cir. 1969) (citing Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 541 

(1939)). According to the complaint, plaintiff X-Littlepage and defendant McCloud are residents 

of California, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. F ¶¶ 1, 3. Berkel never responded to the remand motion and so it 

has failed show that the parties’ places of citizenship or domicile are truly diverse. Because 

complete diversity is not present and the complaint does not raise a federal question, the case was 

removed improvidently and without jurisdiction.

1

 

Berkel’s apparent reliance in the removal petition on the forum defendant rule under 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(b) is misplaced. Under Section 1441(b), “[a] civil action otherwise removable 

solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the parties in interest 

 

1

It is unnecessary to address X-Littlepage’s other argument that Berkel failed to establish the 

amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. 

Case 3:16-cv-00718-JD Document 9 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 

Berkel appears to contend that, because defendant McCloud was not “properly joined and served,” 

as required by Section 1441(b), his status as the forum defendant does not bar the removal. Dkt. 

No. 1 at 8. While this is a correct statement of the law, plaintiff’s failure to serve the forum 

defendant does not relieve the burden on the removing defendant to establish diversity jurisdiction 

in the first place. As is plain from the language of the statute, the existence of a forum defendant 

limits removal when the “civil action [is] otherwise removable . . . on the basis of [diversity 

jurisdiction].” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Since Berkel has not established diversity jurisdiction, this 

action is not “otherwise removable” and the applicability of the forum defendant rule is 

immaterial.

II. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

X-Littlepage also seeks an award of the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing this 

motion to remand. Dkt. No. 8 at 6-7. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) permits the Court to order payment of 

“just costs and any actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 

However, “[a]bsent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only 

where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. 

Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). “But removal is not objectively unreasonable 

solely because the removing party’s arguments lack merit, or else attorney’s fees would always be 

awarded whenever remand is granted.” Lussier v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 

(9th Cir. 2008). Instead, the objective reasonableness of a removal depends on the clarity of the 

applicable law and whether such law “clearly foreclosed” the arguments in support of removal. 

Id. at 1066-67. 

Our circuit has long held that a “nonresident defendant cannot remove a ‘nonseparable’ 

action if the citizenship of any codefendant, joined by the plaintiff in good faith, destroys complete 

diversity, regardless of service or nonservice upon the codefendant.” Vitek, 412 F.2d at 1176

(citing Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534, 541 (1939)); Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

591 F.2d 74, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1979) (“We . . . explicitly rejected the argument that § 1441(b), by 

implication, expanded removal jurisdiction to permit removal, despite want of diversity, if a 

Case 3:16-cv-00718-JD Document 9 Filed 04/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

resident defendant whose presence would defeat diversity had not been served.”) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). It also appears that after the initial notice of removal was 

filed, X-Littlepage’s counsel informed Berkel’s counsel in writing that removal was improper due 

to the controlling Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authorities that require diversity be proven 

both as to served and un-served defendants. March 7, 2016 Letter from A. Knisbacher to A. Tutt, 

Dkt. No. 8-1, Ex. A at 1. Despite this exchange, Berkel neither withdrew its notice of removal nor 

explained why it believed its removal request was objectively reasonable. In fact, Berkel failed to 

even file an opposition to X-Littlepage’s motion to remand. See Bottom v. Forbes, No. C-15-1596 

EMC, 2015 WL 3395865, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (awarding attorneys’ fees where defendant 

“failed to . . . file an opposition” and the notice of removal was “obviously deficient”); Tvia, Inc. 

v. Silva, No. 08-1908 SC, 2008 WL 3843212, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (awarding attorneys’ fees 

where defendants “willfully ignored and misinterpreted the governing statutes and case law”). 

These circumstances warrant the award of fees and costs. X-Littlepage is directed to file 

within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed a sworn statement specifying the amount of 

attorneys’ fees and costs that she incurred as a result of Berkel’s improvident removal. The Clerk 

of the Court is directed to return this case to the Alameda County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-00718-JD Document 9 Filed 04/15/16 Page 4 of 4